Institutions of the Emerging Church 9780567666437, 9780567666451, 9780567666444

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

305 Formerly Journal of the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Catrin H. Williams

INSTITUTIONS OF THE EMERGING CHURCH

Edited by Sven-Olav Back and Erkki Koskenniemi

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2016 © Sven-Olav Back, Erkki Koskenniemi and Contributors, 2016 Sven-Olav Back and Erkki Koskenniemi have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the authors. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-56766-643-7 978-0-56766-644-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Back, Sven-Olav, 1961- editor. Title: Institutions of the emerging church / edited by Sven-Olav Back and Erkki Koskenniemi. Description: New York : Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. | Series: Library of New Testament studies; 305 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016005629 (print) | LCCN 2016017647 (ebook) | ISBN 9780567666437 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780567666444 (epdf) Subjects: LCSH: Church history--Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. | Bible. Epistles of Paul--Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BR199.8 .I57 2016 (print) | LCC BR199.8 (ebook) | DDC 270.1--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016005629 Series: Library of New Testament Studies Series, volume 305 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com)

Contents Preface vii Abbreviations ix Contributors xiii Introduction Sven-Olav Back The Apostolate in the Early Church: From Luke–Acts to the Pauline Tradition Samuel Byrskog

xiv

1

‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’: The Notion of a Common Apostolic Tradition in the Pauline Letters Reidar Hvalvik

19

The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinum Erkki Koskenniemi

39

A New Life to Live: An Aspect of Some Baptismal Texts from the Second- and Third-Generation Church Lars Hartman

71

The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews Jostein Ådna

93

The Eucharist in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch Sven-Olav Back

113

The People of God Tord Fornberg

129

Index of References Index of Authors

145 154

P reface ‘At first, there was no church. Then, there was a church. And then the church was vested with divine authority.’ With these words Olof Linton described a certain ‘consensus’ in late 19th and early 20th century scholarship on the early church – a consensus he challenged in his doctoral dissertation Das Problem der Urkirche back in 1932. The publication of this book has regrettably been delayed, due to circumstances that were outside the sphere of influence of both the publisher and the present editors. At first there was no book. But now there is a book. Although it is not vested with divine authority, we owe thanks to the contributors both for their patience and for the soundness of their work. Nevertheless, each writer is of course responsible for his own contribution. The editors

A bbreviations AB ABD ArBib ASNU ATR BAGD BDAG BECNT BETL Bib BJS BNTC BTB BWANT CBQ ConBNT ConNT EDNT EHPR EKKNT ETS EvT FRLANT GCS HNT HTKNT HUT ICC JBL JSNT KAV KD KNT LAW

Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary The Aramaic Bible Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis Anglican Theological Review W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1979) W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3rd edn, 1999) Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblica Brown Judaic Studies Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblical Theology Bulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coniectanea biblica, New Testament Coniectanea neotestamentica Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Etudes d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Erfurter Theologische Studien Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Griechische christliche Schriftsteller Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of the New Testament Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern Kerygma und Dogma Kommentar till Nya Testamentet Lexikon der Alten Welt

x LCL LPGL LSJ Meyer MVS NCB NICNT NovT NovTSup NRSV NRT NTAbh NTD NTS NTTS PG PiNTC PNTC RAC RelB RGG RNT SANT SBTS SC SEÅ SL SMU SNTSMS SNTW SP ST STK StP Str-B TDNT TDOT THKNT TLZ TRE TTK TTZ

Abbreviations Loeb Classical Library G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) H. G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, Greek–English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn, 1968) K. H. A. W. Meyer (ed.), Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Menighedsfakultetets Videnskabelige Serie New Century Bible New International Commentary on the New Testament Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplement Series New Revised Standard Version La nouvelle revue théologique Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus completa…Series graeca (166 vols.; Paris: Petit-Montrouge, 1857–83) Pillar New Testament Commentary Pelican New Testament Commentaries Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Religion och Bibel Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Regensburger Neues Testament Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Sources chrétiennes Svensk exegetisk årsbok Studia Liturgica Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies of the New Testament and its World Sacra Pagina Studia theologica Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift Studia patristica [Hermann L. Strack and] Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (7 vols; Munich: Beck, 1922–61) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Realenzyklopädie Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke Trierer theologische Zeitschrift

TWNT TZ VC WBC WdF WMANT WUNT ZB ZBK.NT ZNW

Abbreviations

xi

Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament Theologische Zeitschrift Vigiliae christianae Word Biblical Commentery Wege der Forschung Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zürcher Bibel Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Neues Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

C ontributors Jostein Ådna, Professor of New Testament; VID Specialized University; Faculty of Theology, Diaconia and Leadership; Stavanger, Norway Sven-Olav Back, Adjunct Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Lecturer in Biblical Languages and Exegesis, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Samuel Byrskog, Professor of New Testament Studies, University of Lund, Sweden Tord Fornberg, Senior Lecturer (retired) in New Testament Exegesis at Uppsala University, presently teaching at the Catholic Newman Institute, Uppsala, Sweden Lars Hartman, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis, Uppsala University, Sweden Reidar Hvalvik, Professor of New Testament Studies, MF Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo, Norway Erkki Koskenniemi, Adjunct Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Åbo Akademi University, University of Helsinki and University of Eastern Finland (Joensuu), Finland

I ntroduction Sven-Olav Back The essays in the present volume shed light upon the ecclesiology and institutions of the first- and second-century church. The term ‘institutions’ in the title should not be taken as an indication of an overall sociological perspective, but rather as an umbrella term covering sacraments and office (ministry).1 The editors, wanting to be innovative, initially contemplated another title for this book, viz. The Chosen Lady (cf. 2 Jn 1). The title, A Very New Book on the Church, however, perhaps should have been chosen, as this volume is a distant relative of earlier Swedish tomes such as En bok om kyrkan (A Book on the Church), En bok om kyrkans ämbete (A Book on the Ministry of the Church), and En ny bok om kyrkan (A New Book on the Church).2 En bok om kyrkan (1942) was a remarkable joint venture between systematic theologians and exegetes in Sweden.3 There were several reasons for the project,4 one of them being the need to consider new 1.  For sociological discussions on institutionalism and institutions, see e.g. P. L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (repr., London: Penguin Books, 1991), 65-109; B. Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (ConBNT 11; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1978), 162-81. 2.  En bok om kyrkan av svenska teologer, ed. G. Aulén et al. (Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses bokförlag, 1943); En bok om kyrkans ämbete, ed. H. Lindroth (Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses bokförlag, 1951); En ny bok om kyrkan, ed. C. Braw (Borås: Norma, 1989). 3.  The contributors included systematic theologians such as G. Aulén, A. Nygren and R. Bring, and biblical scholars such as A. Fridrichsen, H. Odeberg and O. Linton. As B. Gerhardsson notes, ‘almost the entire theological elite of Sweden had gathered around the theme of the Church’; Gerhardsson, Fridrichsen – Odeberg – Aulén – Nygren: fyra teologer (Lund: Novapress, 1994), 41-2. 4.  The introduction by Aulén (En bok om Kyrkan, 7-10) mentions the rise of the ecumenical movement after WW I, the need to address questions pertaining to the relationship between the church and the ‘world’ due to the ongoing WW II, and new

xvi

Introduction

developments in New Testament exegesis since the 1920s, and make them more widely known within the Lutheran Church of Sweden. The exegetical studies in the volume included e.g. ‘Corpus Christi’ by Anders Nygren, ‘Messias och kyrkan’ (‘The Messiah and the Church’) by Anton Fridrichsen and ‘Kyrka och ämbete i Nya Testamentet’ (‘Church and Office/Ministry in the New Testament’) by Olof Linton. In En bok om kyrkans ämbete (1951) there was only one essay on the New Testament, viz. Harald Riesenfeld’s study ‘Ämbetet i Nya Testametet’ (‘The Ministry/ Office in the New Testament’).5 Especially during the 1930s and 1940s, Linton and Fridrichsen made important contributions to research on the theme of the church in early Christian thinking.6 The most well-known of their works is Linton’s doctoral dissertation, ‘Das Problem der Urkirche in der neueren Forschung’ (1932), where the author reflected critically on what he termed the ‘Consensus’, i.e. the view of the early church, its organization and developments within New Testament exegesis since the 1920s. But cf. Gerhardsson, Fyra teologer, 43: ‘En bok om kyrkan appeared not least in order to domesticate the high church movement and make it healthy and Lutheran’; Gerhardsson refers to letters by members of the editorial team. There was, in fact, both open and veiled criticism of the Swedish high church movement in several of the articles in En bok om kyrkan. Another object of criticism was the ‘free church’, i.e. non-Lutheran ‘evangelical’ Christianity. For Aulén’s assessment of ‘the new high church movement’ and its ecclesiological views, see Aulén, Hundra års svensk kyrkodebatt: drama i tre akter (Stockholm: Svenska kyrkans Diakonistyrelses bokförlag, 1953), 141-85 (One hundred years of Swedish church debate: a drama in three acts). 5.  In addition, there was an essay by H. Fagerberg on ‘The Office of a Bishop and Other Church Ministries in the Old Church’. The other of the contributions to this volume dealt with the ministry/office in Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism and in German Lutheranism in the 1900th century. Last but not least there was a long (70 pages) dogmatic piece by H. Lindroth on ‘the office of the church’. 6.  O. Linton, Das Problem der Urkirche in der neueren Forschung: eine kritische Darstellung (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1932). Other contributions by Linton include the article mentioned above, i.e. ‘Kyrka och ämbete i Nya Testamentet’, in En bok om kyrkan, 100-131, and further ‘Ekklesia’, RAC 3, 905-21 (published in 1959). Fridrichsen wrote no book on the church in the New Testament, but reflected on the subject in many articles, including ‘Kyrka och sakrament i Nya Testamentet’, STK 12 (1936): 303-17; ‘Kyrkan i Fjärde evangeliet’, STK 16 (1940): 227-42; and ‘Messias och kyrkan’, in En bok om kyrkan, 26-45. On Fridrichsen’s life, work, and ‘realistic’ interpretation of the New Testament, see E. M. Heen, ‘Anton Fridrichsen (1888–1953): An Introduction and an Author Bibliography’ (MTh diss., Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, St. Paul, 1989).



Introduction

xvii

institutions held in the late nineteenth century, especially, but not exclusively, by liberal Protestant scholars. In Linton’s words, the ‘Consensus’ may be summed up thus: ‘At first, there was no church. Then, there was a church. And then the church was vested with divine authority. At first, there was no office [of the church]. Then, there was an office, and lastly it was vested with divine authority.’7 Against views like these, Linton, referring to contemporary research (Karl Ludwig Schmidt and others), held that quite the opposite theses may be upheld: ‘The church exists as a theological thought before it exists in the real world – already in the eschatological thought of Late Judaism. The church exists before the local congregation, which is a local manifestation of the church.’8 A similar Umwertung can be made as far as the office is concerned: ‘The office is not late and only with hindsight vested with divine authority. The authority is originally there and has a religious character from the very beginning.’9 Both Fridrichsen and Linton emphasized the close connection between Christ and the church. Christ cannot be understood and must never be seen in isolation from the church.10 There is also no discontinuity between the proclamation and ministry of Jesus, on one hand, and the appearance of the church on the other hand. On the contrary: Jesus intended the emergence of the church, and in him and his circle of apostles it was already there, even if only ‘in nuce’.11 Jesus was also the originator of the apostolic office, and, consequently, of the other offices of the church; for there is no decisive line to be drawn between the apostolic office and the other emerging early Christian offices.12 ‘The powers of the kingdom of God’, Fridrichsen wrote, ‘are at work in this ecklesía, which is the center of the world and an heir of the world to come; it is always threatened by the powers of destruction, but also in possession of the promise that “the gates of hell will not overcome it” ’.13 The ‘powers of the kingdom of God’ are, more precisely, at work through 7.  Linton, ‘Kyrka och ämbete’, 101; cf. Linton, Problem, 2-67, especially 2-30. 8.  Linton, ‘Kyrka och ämbete’, 103; cf. Linton, Problem, 119-85. 9.  Linton, ‘Kyrka och ämbete’, 103; cf. Linton, Problem, 68-118. 10.  For this idea in Fridrichsen, see e.g. ‘Messias och kyrkan’; cf. Gerhardsson, Fyra teologer, 40-1. 11.  Linton, Problem, 157-83; ‘Ekklesia’, 914-15; Fridrichsen, ‘Messias och kyrkan’, 29-34. 12.  Linton, Problem, 69-101; ‘Kyrka och ämbete’, 127; Riesenfeld, ‘Ämbetet’, 32-44. 13.  Fridrichsen, ‘Messias och kyrkan’, 40.

xviii

Introduction

the sacraments, which represent ‘the heavenly Lord personally present in his church in the last days of this aeon’.14 According to New Testament thought, baptism is ‘an eschatological sacrament, which in the church and the world reveals and actualizes the New, which will be fulfilled in the coming aeon’.15 In the eucharistic action – not the elements, but the action – Christ gives his church the fruits of his saving work.16 This book shares kinship with the above-mentioned volumes: common themes and subjects are easily detected. At the same time, however, it is clear that the present volume is only distantly related to the earlier ones. Times have changed; new questions have emerged and clamor for scholarly attention; moreover, methodological approaches have not remained the same; nor has the context – the ‘secular’ as well as the ecclesial one – in which we live and move. The reader might want to compare the present work with two other relatively recent volumes containing essays which concern or touch on ecclesiological issues: The Formation of the Early Church, consisting of papers read at the Nordic New Testament Conference in Stavanger 2003, and the 2007 Festschrift in honour of Prof. Hans Kvalbein.17 The essays in these works are mostly written by Scandinavian (including Finnish) scholars. The first three contributions to this volume deal with the apostolate in the early church, apostolic tradition and offices other than the apostolate. Samuel Byrskog’s contribution bears the title, ‘The Apostolate in the Early Church’. Byrskog refrains from pursuing the precise origin of the early Christian apostolate. Instead, he investigates the views of the apostolate contained in Luke–Acts, the undisputed letters of Paul, as well as Ephesians and the Pastoral letters. He detects a development in Paul’s reflections regarding the authority of the apostolic office, 1 Thessalonians and Romans being two extremes. The Lukan view, Byrskog argues, does not contradict the Pauline one; it is different, but complementary rather than contradictory. Similarly, the notions of the apostolate in Ephesians and the Pastoral letters are in basic agreement with the Pauline outlook; there is continuity rather than contrast. Having quoted some early patristic texts referring to a common apostolic tradition, Reidar Hvalvik questions the origin of this notion. In answer he turns to the Corpus Paulinum (‘ “Hold fast to the traditions that 14.  Fridrichsen, ‘Kyrka och sakrament’, 313. 15.  Ibid., 314. 16.  Ibid., 314-16; ‘Kyrkan i Fjärde evangeliet’, 236. 17.  The Formation of the Early Church, ed. J. Ådna (WUNT 183; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); TTK 78, no. 3–4 (2007): 157-315.



Introduction

xix

you were taught by us”: The Notion of a Common Apostolic Tradition in the Pauline Letters’). His essay, then, is related to Byrskog’s, and deals in more depth with one of the questions which could not be treated at length there. Hvalvik argues that Paul’s view of his apostolic authority and the normative character of his teaching led him to represent this teaching as tradition. Paul saw himself both as a source and a transmitter of normative tradition. In addition, he was aware of the existence of a common apostolic tradition (especially Rom. 6.17 and 16.17). As Erkki Koskenniemi remarks, the Pauline churches were not independent in the sense that they lived their own lives, so to speak, but rather were supposed to listen to, and obey, their apostolic ‘father’. In addition to Paul, however, there were also local leaders, apparently from the very beginning of the existence of these churches. This thesis is argued by Koskenniemi in his essay, ‘The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinum’. The question of the titles of these leaders (‘authorities’), as well as the precise definition of their tasks, is a thorny one, and owing to the mostly occasional character of the evidence, not easily answered. There are reasons to doubt the common distinction between an ‘episcopal’ and a ‘presbyterian’ order in the early church: neither the proto- nor the deuteropauline letters seem to provide enough evidence for such a thesis. There follow three contributions on sacraments. Lars Hartman investigates some baptismal texts from the second and third generations of the early church (Tit. 3.1-7, Jn 2.21–3.21, Didache and Justin Martyr, 1 Apol.), focussing on how these texts describe the ‘before’ and the ‘after’ with regard to baptism. Hartman’s essay is titled ‘A New Life to Live: An Aspect of Some Baptismal Texts from the Second- and Third-Generation Church’. Each of the four authors takes for granted that God is at work in baptism. This work is described in different ways, but common to the texts is a notion of baptism as, on one hand, the end of the God-alienated past, and, on the other hand, the introduction of a new existence marked by God’s powerful presence with or in the Christian. This presence creates the foundational possibilities for a new life to live, a life which the authors see in an eschatological perspective. Jostein Ådna, in his ‘The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews’, highlights the soteriological and ecclesiological aspects of Paul’s pronouncements on the eucharist in 1 Corinthians. These two aspects are also present in Paul’s view of baptism, Ådna notes. The eucharist is a re-enactment of Christ’s last meal: Christ is the host who, distributing the eucharistic elements, grants the participants a share in his vicarious sacrifice and the atoning power of his death. This is the soteriological significance of the eucharist.

xx

Introduction

The common sharing of the eucharistic elements unites the participants in the ‘body of Christ’, which is a pneumatic reality which exists before the individuals and into which the individuals are drawn. This is the ecclesiological significance of the eucharist in Paul – in the Letter to the Hebrews, there are probably references to the eucharist in 9.18-21 and 13.9-10. Sven-Olav Back turns his attention to the eucharistic doctrine of Ignatius of Antioch, in so far as this doctrine comes into view in the Ignatian corpus (‘The Eucharist in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch’). Although Ignatius only occasionally mentions the eucharist, it is clearly important to him. He seems to emphasize strongly the ‘real presence’ of Christ’s body and blood in the eucharistic elements, and thinks the eucharist gives the communicants a share in eternal life. However, it is of crucial importance that the eucharist be celebrated within the ‘altar room’, i.e., in communion with and in subordination to the bishop. In the concluding essay of this volume, Tord Fornberg reflects on the theme ‘The People of God’. Fornberg notes that this concept must be understood against the background of the covenant between God and Israel. In the Old Testament, there is one eternal covenant and one people of God; in addition, there are some universal tendencies. In the New Testament writings there is a strong inclination to broaden the concept of the people of God to include gentiles. Fornberg pays special attention to the question as to whether these writings also argue for an abrogation of the ‘old’ covenant and thus support a ‘replacement theology’. According to Fornberg, this question is, on the whole, to be answered in the negative, even though there are some texts which point in a different direction.

The Apos tol at e i n t h e E ar ly Chur ch: Fr om Lu k e– A ct s to t h e Pa uli ne T r adi t i on* Samuel Byrskog

1. The Contours of the Debate The early Christian apostolate is a multifaceted issue. It involves complex questions of origin and development and has been a central object of scholarly discussion and controversy for more than a century.1 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf’s article on ἀπόστολος in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament was published in 1933 and appeared in an English translation in 1964.2 It became very influential and dominated the international debate for a long time.3 In Rengstorf’s view the Christian apostolate was derived from the Jewish institution of the shaliach [šālîaḥ]. He believed that passages such as Mk 6.7 pars; 9.38-40 par.; 9.41 par.; and Lk. 10.16 linked it firmly with the ministry of the historical Jesus. It was originally a commission and an authorization limited in time and *  The author is grateful for permission to re-print this article previously published in SEÅ 76 (2011): 161-78. 1.  Many scholars trace the beginning of the debate back to 1865 with the publication of J. B. Lightfoot’s commentary on Galatians and its excursus ‘The Name and Office of an Apostle’. See his St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertation (London: Macmillan, 1865), 89-97. 2.  I have used the English translation in TDNT 1:407-45. The literature on this topic is immense. I do not attempt to cover it fully but will refer only to the most significant publications. There exists, to my knowledge, no recent, full-length bibliographical study of the literature. A good list of literature can be found in J. Roloff, ‘Apostel/Apostolat/Apostolizität I. Neues Testament’, TRE 3:430-45, here 443-5. Further literature in F. H. Agnew, ‘The Origins of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research’, JBL 105 (1986): 75–96. 3.  Cf. J. A. Kirk, ‘Apostleship Since Rengstorf: Towards and Synthesis’, NTS 21 (1975): 249-64. Kirk gives no summary and evaluation of Rengstorf’s view but includes valuable references to the debate up until the mid-1970s.

2

Institutions of the Emerging Church

space. Jesus appointed the disciples as apostles and sent them out with the specific task of preaching the imminent Kingdom, which the risen Lord had renewed and modified. In their definitive institution as apostles, they were to be Spirit-empowered witnesses of the resurrection for their whole life as well as missionaries. In that way the apostolate received the character of an office, according to Rengstorf. While the Twelve were its chief members, the entire apostolic circle was wider. Paul established his apostolate in order to save himself from inferiority and consistently sought for unity between himself and the original apostles. Rengstorf’s account of the Christian apostolate soon faced criticism on several counts. The debate went in different directions. In a 1953 article Eduard Lohse asked about the development of the term ἀπόστολος from describing a function similar to the shaliach-concept to becoming the title of an office.4 He pointed to the impossibility of proving that Jesus transmitted the office to the Twelve and focused instead on the crucial role of the Pauline controversies. The twelve disciples had remained in Jerusalem as eschatological pillars (cf. Gal. 2.9) and, with the exception of Peter, confined their preaching to Israel. According to Lohse the designation ἀπόστολος had originally been given to the missionaries sent out especially by the Jerusalem church. It was in Antioch, where the Christians spoke Greek, that the functional shaliach-concept was replaced with the proper title of an apostle. Paul himself had no authorization from the church in Jerusalem and based his apostleship on Jesus Christ. He was the first one to use the expression ἀπόστολος ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Recognizing also that Christ had authorized the Twelve, he included them in the group of apostles. In the gentile churches the concept of the Twelve receded and ἀπόστολος took its place. The author of Luke–Acts applied this development to the ministry of the historical Jesus and the development of the early church and omitted Paul from the list of apostles. In 1961 Walter Schmithals and Günter Klein published their wellknown monographs on the Christian apostolate and the Twelve.5 Klein used Schmithals’ study and Schmithals was able to include references

4.  ‘Ursprung und Prägung des christlichen Apostolats’, TZ 9 (1953): 259-75. 5.  G. Klein, Die zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee (FRLANT 59; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961); W. Schmithals, Das kirchliche Apostelamt: Eine historische Untersuchung (FRLANT 61; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961). Schmithals had previously published studies which he employed. Cf. his Die Gnosis in Korinth: Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen (2nd ed.; FRLANT 48; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965; 1st ed. 1956); and ‘Die Häretiker in Galatien’, ZNW 47 (1956): 25-67.



Byrskog The Apostolate in the Early Church

3

to Klein and comment on his work in a separate appendix. To them the relationship between the Christian apostolate and the institution of the Jewish shaliach is unprovable and unlikely. According to Klein, the idea of the Twelve as apostles was an invention of the Lukan author in the combat against gnosticism at the beginning of the second century. He deprived the gnostics of the Pauline epistles by withholding from Paul the title apostle and transferring it exclusively to the Twelve. The author thus erased all traces of a wider circle of apostles and maintained the church’s tradition. Schmithals believed that the early Christian apostolate was an appropriation of the missionary office of Jewish or Jewish-Christian gnostic circles in Syria, where ἀπόστολος was used as a title for redeemer figures or heavenly emissaries. From Syria and the missionary center in Antioch it spread to the gentile churches. Its use for the Twelve arose subsequently in the late post-apostolic age. The debate continued.6 Klein and Schmithals were criticized in several ways. Against Klein it was noted, among other things, that there are several texts that are older than the date he attributes to Luke–Acts and which connect apostleship with the Twelve. Against Schmithals scholars pointed to the presence of apostles in the early church in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor. 15.7; Gal. 1.17), in addition to his problematic transference of various and often mutually conflicting gnostic notions to Paul.7 Further research has also stressed that the shaliach-concept was not limited merely to a particular historical and legal institution of a later time but can be found in the Old Testament and early Jewish texts from the Palestinian sphere as a prophetic and popular-juridical sending-convention with profound religious significance.8

6.  For a good overview, see Agnew, ‘The Origins of the NT Apostle-Concept’, 75-96. 7.  For further critique of Klein and Schmithals, see B. Gerhardsson, ‘Die Boten Gottes und die Apostel Christi’, SEÅ 27 (1962): 89-131, here 89-105. 8.  So e.g. Gerhardsson, ‘Die Boten Gottes’, 105-16; J. Roloff, Apostolat – Verkündigung – Kirche: Ursprung, Inhalt und Funktion des kirchlichen Apostelamtes nach Paulus, Lukas und den Pastoralbriefen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1965), 10-15, 39, 272-3; F. Hahn, ‘Der Apostolat im Urchristentum. Seine Eigenart und seine Voraussetzungen’, KD 20 (1974): 54-77, here 62-9; J.-A. Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium: Die kultur- und religions­ geschichtlichen Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung (WUNT 2/2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977), 271-306; idem, ‘ἀπόστολος’, EDNT 1:142-6, here 145.

4

Institutions of the Emerging Church

2. The Issue From this brief survey of some major studies of the early Christian apostolate some general observations emerge. Most obviously, it seems impossible to say with certainty when and where the notion of the apostolate was at first applied to any of the followers of Jesus. In particular, the attempt to trace it back to the historical Jesus is beset with a number of difficulties.9 The background of the term in the Old Testament and Jewish material and in ancient Greek texts gives a possible semantic frame of the term in its general sense of messenger (cf. Jn 13.16; 2 Cor. 8.23; Phil. 2.25),10 but it gives little help in understanding the emergence of the Christian apostolate. Rengstorf’s use of certain texts in order to link it with the ministry of Jesus has, as we saw, been criticized from early on. Only rarely do such texts use ἀπόστολος for the Twelve. Rengstorf also refers to notions that do not immediately explain the development of later ideas concerning the apostolate. The early church made no reference to Jesus’ commission of the disciples as a basis of the Christian apostolate but looked back on his resurrection as the decisive event.11 On the other hand, while the Lukan view of the Twelve as apostles is tendentious enough to be seen as an intentional creation of the author, it should be noted that the Twelve are also called apostles in at least one earlier text, namely Mk 6.30.12 Here the term is not placed on the lips of Jesus but appears within a comment by the narrator about the gathering of the Twelve after they had come back from the mission. It is occasioned by the earlier comment of the narrator in 6.7 that Jesus began ‘to send them out’ (αὐτοὺς ἀποστέλλειν) two and two and has its general sense of mission and of being an authorized agent. It denotes function rather than status. We have no evidence from the Markan narrative that the author and his audience were conscious of a broader and more technical use of the term.13 9.  The opinion of H. Freiherr von Campenhausen was that the origins of the apostolate in the early church elude research (see below), but he accepted Rengstorf’s idea of the influence of the shaliach-concept and thought that the Twelve were instituted by the historical Jesus. See his ‘Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff’, ST 1 (1947): 96-130, here 97-105, 127. 10.  For the Greek material (Herodotus, LXX-Symmachus, Papyri), see F. H. Agnew, ‘On the Origin of the Term Apostolos’, CBQ 38 (1976): 49-53. 11.  Correctly stressed by Hahn, ‘Der Apostolat im Urchristentum’, 75-6. 12.  Cf. also Mk 3.14 (text-critically uncertain; perhaps due to the influence of Lk. 6.13); Mt 10.2 (perhaps related to Lk. 6.13). 13.  Commentaries on Mark often notice the connection to Mk 6.7 but add that the author and his audience also knew that ἀπόστολος had become a technical term in the



Byrskog The Apostolate in the Early Church

5

To this should be added that in 1 Cor. 15.5, which might be pre-Pauline, Paul refers to the Twelve as a distinct group. Two verses later he speaks of ‘all the apostles’ and indicates that he regarded the Twelve as a separate group of apostles.14 This reference in Paul is, however, unique. Elsewhere he pays no attention to the Twelve as a group and, as we will see, builds his concept of apostleship on other grounds. Thus, when the term ἀπόστολος appears for the first time in the Gospels, it neither represents Jesus’ own terminology for the Twelve, nor is it loaded with titular connotations, nor is it firmly and clearly anchored in the pre-Markan tradition. The Gospel tradition takes us back to Mk 6.30, but no further. As for Paul, he takes us back to the mid-50s and perhaps to an even earlier tradition, but he seems himself not to have attached any particular importance to the idea that the Twelve constituted a separate group of apostles. In spite of this rather sporadic use of the term ἀπόστολος for the Twelve in the earliest sources, and as is evident from the survey above, the debate about the early Christian apostolate contains several informed conjectures concerning where and when it originated and how it developed. The sustained efforts to trace it back to Jesus’ ministry and his sending out of the twelve disciples is but one example of this. The present article suggests that we start with the most prolific account of the apostolate in the New Testament and ask about factors that possibly caused it. These factors should not, however, be seen narrowly in terms of strict literary dependency. Origins and developments in history are rarely – if ever – to be found in clear-cut innovative thoughts and happenings and straightforward genetic relationships but appear mostly in the form of complex and multi­dimensional tendencies and influences. The early Christian apostolate is no exception. My argument will be that the controversies of Paul reflected in Galatians and 1 and 2 Corinthians triggered for him an increasingly more articulated view of the early Christian apostolate. This view was embellished in various but harmoniously related ways in Luke–Acts, the Pastorals, and the letter to the Ephesians.

Christian churches. However, there is no hint of this technical meaning in the Gospel itself. Von Campenhausen saw the matter clearly: ‘Niemand würde hinter diesem einmaligen Gebrauch von ἀπόστολος einen besonderen Titel der Zwölf vermuten, wenn wir nicht durch Lukas und die spätere Überlieferung gewohnt wären, ihn vorauszusetzen’ (‘Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff’, 105). 14.  For arguments, see Roloff, Apostolat, 57-60.

6

Institutions of the Emerging Church

3. The Lukan View As is well-known, Luke–Acts betrays a very prolific use of the term ἀπόστολος. It is not explicable merely as a development of Mk 6.30. There must have been more behind it. Although the author heard and read that passage in Mark with approval (cf. Lk. 9.10), his development of the notion of the apostolate goes much further. The term appears six times in the Gospel (6.13; 9.10; 11.49; 17.5; 22.14; 24.10), including in a Jesussaying (11.49). At 17.5, 22.14, and 24.10 it has become a fixed designation for the first group of disciples. There is no reference here to mission. The term serves as a basic collective designation for the Twelve. In Acts – in 1.2 and further on – this titular usage dominates. The development in Luke–Acts probably has to do with the author’s ambition to anchor firmly his narrative of Jesus and the early church within the legitimate apostolic circle of witnesses in Jerusalem. The eyewitnesses and ministers of the word that he programmatically mentions in Lk. 1.2 are no-one else but the twelve apostles.15 That this view is a creative elaboration of earlier uses of ἀπόστολος rather than an independent new invention becomes evident not only from a comparison with Mk 6.30, but also when we notice the apostolic features attached to Paul – and even Barnabas – in Acts. The author finds no problem in giving accounts of Paul’s words at his conversion that contain the verbs ἐξαποστέλλειν (22.21) and ἀποστέλλειν (26.17). The Lukan Paul here rehearses what he heard the risen Christ tell him soon after or at his conversion. Elsewhere he and Barnabas are explicitly called apostles (14.4, 14). These features do not accord with the general Lukan perspective concerning the Twelve as apostles. Yet the author chose to include them. He must have been aware that he used the same term both as a title for the Twelve and as a description of Paul’s and Barnabas’ missionary function. The tendency of some influential scholarship to see a sharp distinction between the picture in Luke–Acts and the one in the Pauline writings has meant that the references to Paul as an apostle in Acts have been regarded as insignificant non-titular uses of the term ἀπόστολος16 or relegated to the influence of a pre-Lukan source.17 In Acts 15, it is argued, Paul and Barnabas are confronted with the real apostles in Jerusalem; and in that 15.  See further my Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (WUNT 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Boston: Brill, 2002), 228-35. 16.  So e.g. von Campenhausen, ‘Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff’, 115; Lohse, ‘Ursprung und Prägung’, 273. 17.  So e.g. Roloff, ‘Apostel’, 443; H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 108; Bühner, ‘ἀπόστολοϛ’, 144. Klein, Die



Byrskog The Apostolate in the Early Church

7

connection they are not referred to as apostles. However, this solution is based on an out-dated mode of harmonizing narrative ambiguities and a redaction-critical method of reconstructing fragments of sources. It fails to take seriously the literary and theological sophistication of the author. The prolific use of ἀπόστολος elsewhere in Luke–Acts indicates that he must have been aware of its presence also in these passages.18 It is precisely the inclusion of these irregularities – whether they come from a source or not – that is of importance. They indicate that he knew of and accepted a different use of the term than the one he himself favoured for the Twelve. The author employs the term with intentional care. Barnabas and Saul had been sent out from the church in Antioch. This is, according to the book of Acts, where some men at first proclaimed the Lord Jesus to non-Jews (11.20). The episodes referring to them as apostles in 14.4, 14 have their narrative starting-point in the account of their commissioning in 13.1-4. While the Holy Spirit is active in sending them out, they are emissaries of the church in Antioch. It is also to this church that they later return and report. The episodes come to a narrative close when the two apostles, according to 14.26-28, after their return call the church together and relate all that God had done with them and how he had opened the door for the gentiles. The author carefully frames the references to Paul and Barnabas as apostles by linking the two to the church in Antioch and the gentile mission. We thus find two notions of the apostolate in Luke–Acts, one that restricts it to the Twelve in Jerusalem and one that includes two leading emissaries of the church in Antioch. The first one is most prominent and serves to legitimate the author’s two-volume narrative concerning Jesus and the early church. The second one is part of his account of how the gospel began to spread from Antioch to the gentiles. It was spread not ad hoc but by two authorized emissaries. These two notions are narratively resolved in Acts 15. At this point the author has indicated to his hearers/readers his double view and employs the term ἀπόστολος more frequently than anywhere else in his composition, zwölf Apostel, 212-13, favours in 14.14 the reading where οἱ ἀπόστολοι is missing. However, this reading is weaker than the one that includes it. 18.  K. Haacker shows that the author of Luke–Acts used the term ἀπόστολος with much more sophistication than often assumed. See his ‘Verwendung und Vermeidung des Apostelbegriffs’, NovT 30 (1988): 9-38. He rightly realizes the importance of ἀπόστολος in Acts 14.4, 14 (pp. 34-7). Cf. also R. Riesner, ‘Once More: Luke–Acts and the Pastoral Epistles’, in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, ed. S.-W. Son (New York: Clark, 2006), 239-58, here 252.

8

Institutions of the Emerging Church

five times altogether (15.2, 4, 6, 22, 23). In 16.4 he employs it for the last time in the narrative as a reference back to what he described in ch. 15. It is as if he is eager to set things right after the references to Paul and Barnabas in 14.4, 14, before he moves on with his account of Paul’s mission. Although many scholars have noted that ch. 15 is a decisive turning point in the Lukan narrative, the shift concerning the function of apostles has received much less attention. Three things are of importance for the present purposes. First, the scene is located in Jerusalem. That might be one of the reasons why Paul and Barnabas are not referred to as apostles. The focus is entirely on the apostles of Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, according to Luke, there are only the twelve apostles. Secondly, the apostles are in this chapter always mentioned together with the elders. This is an indication that the elders will subsequently replace them as leaders of the churches.19 The elders were introduced in 11.30. According to 14.23 Paul and Barnabas had installed elders in each church they visited. In 21.18 the apostles have disappeared and the elders alone remain, with James at their head. The influence of the apostles is decreasing in the narrative, while elders such as the ones appointed by Paul and Barnabas are becoming increasingly important. Thirdly, the final act of the apostles in Acts is to send a letter together with the elders to the gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Antioch is the crucial place of the three mentioned. The author reports only that the letter was delivered to those in Antioch (15.30) – he has not yet spoken of any mission to Syria and Cilicia, although he seems to take it for granted in 15.41. As a final act, before the narrative moves on to describe Paul’s mission to the gentiles, the Jerusalem apostles seek to establish their authority in the church which previously had sent out Paul and Barnabas as apostles. There is no polemic against what had happened in Antioch but rather an attempt to mark the continuity of the apostolic mission of the Twelve with the mission issuing from the church in Antioch. The commission of the risen Jesus to the Twelve to be witnesses to the ends of the earth (1.8) is continued through Paul’s mission and his commission to be a witness to the world (22.15; 26.16). Once this continuity is narratively secured, the Twelve disappear as apostolic authorities. 4. The Pauline View This two-leveled notion of the early Christian apostolate in the narrative of Luke–Acts has similarities with the perspective emerging from the Pauline writings and the Pauline tradition. As the Lukan author moves on 19.  So also E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 462.



Byrskog The Apostolate in the Early Church

9

in his narrative, it becomes clear that Paul was not only an apostle in the sense that he represented the church in Antioch, but, as we have seen, that his very calling was closely related to a decisive commissioning of the risen Christ (Acts 22.21; 26.17). This resembles the central idea of Paul that his calling occurred in a Christophany and that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 9.1; 15.8-9; Gal. 1.1). While he calls several persons besides himself apostles, he also, like the author of Luke–Acts, knows of people who had been apostles already before him in Jerusalem (Gal. 1.17). This group was distinguished from other groups and included Peter as well as other members among the Twelve (1 Cor. 15.5). In addition, Paul probably classed James, the Lord’s brother, and others as apostles in Jerusalem (Gal. 1.19; 1 Cor. 15.7).20 Paul’s seven undisputed letters are earlier than the Gospel of Mark and Luke–Acts. They reflect the first known uses of the term ἀπόστολος in early Christianity and might give clues as to what lay behind the sophisticated Lukan elaboration of the apostolate. The similarities noted above are not entirely consistent and are found mainly in letters where Paul has developed his view in face of competing voices in the churches. In the debate about Paul’s notion of his apostleship, scholars sometimes refer to a uniform Pauline view and give the impression that from the time of his Damascus experience Paul entertained a conscious and well-structured idea of his apostolic status.21 However, it is unlikely that Paul took over the notion of a Christian apostleship as a clear-cut and well-defined concept at his conversion or even in the late 40s or early 50s, especially since he had had no previous contact with the Twelve in Jerusalem. His conversion might indeed have contained a nucleus of awareness of his special call to go to the gentiles, as Acts indicates, but this is different from saying that he was already fully aware of his exceptional apostolic status at this time. His letters suggest rather that he developed it gradually during his mission career and epistolary activity.22 In 1 Thessalonians and Romans we find two extremes. Both letters might have been written in Corinth. The former one is probably Paul’s earliest letter, from the early 50s when the Christian community in 20.  For the problem of the ἕτερον and εἰ μή in Gal. 1.19, see e.g. R. N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas, TX: Word, 1990), 38. 21.  For a balanced attempt in this direction, cf. S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (WUNT 140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). 22.  This was suggested already by O. Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe (BWANT 4/6; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933), 153-87. Roller included also the Pastorals in his developmental scheme.

10

Institutions of the Emerging Church

Corinth was newly founded.23 Paul does not refer to himself as an apostle in the prescript, just like in 2 Thessalonians, but places himself as the first person to be mentioned together with Silvanus and Timothy. The rest of the letter is accordingly, with three brief exceptions (2.18; 3.5; 5.27), formulated in the first person plural. 1 Thessalonians gives the impression of being a collective letter from all three senders.24 In 2.18 Paul could have had reason to stress his position as an apostle, but he does not do so. We find instead that the reference to the apostles of Christ in 2.7 fails to mention Paul as a specifically authorized person and includes all three senders and authors on equal terms. About seven or eight years later, and in striking contrast to all other undisputed Pauline letters, Paul is the sole sender of the letter to the Romans. Now he boldly presents himself as an apostle (1.1) and expands the format of conventional Jewish and Greek letter prescripts in order to give several credentials and enhance his apostleship (1.5).25 In the letter body he again emphatically, with a pronounced ‘I’, states his position as an apostle to the gentiles and glorifies his ministry (11.13). Although he is aware that there exist other prominent apostles (16.7) and knows that his close co-worker Timothy and a number of relatives and other friends are present with him at the time of composition (16.21-23), he puts himself above them all as the sole apostolic authority addressing the believers in Rome. He employs a variety of literary techniques which sometimes include the use of ‘we’, but they function to include either the fictional discussion partner of a diatribe (3.5, 8-9, 19 etc.) or the addressees in Rome (4.24; 5.1-11; 6.1-2 etc.). The modest and collegial Paul of 1 Thessalonians has developed into the firmly convinced and leading apostle of the gentiles. The seven or eight years that passed from the writing of 1 Thessalonians to the writing of Romans were years of intense activity and conflict. During this time notions of authority and apostleship became central issues 23.  For a chart based on the most thorough discussion to date, see R. Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus: Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie (WUNT 71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 286. For the dating and place of composition, see pp. 323-4. I differ from Riesner in dating Galatians slightly after 1 Thessalonians. 24.  See my article ‘Co-Senders, Co-Authors and Paul’s Use of the First Person Plural’, ZNW 87 (1996): 230-50, here 236-8. 25.  See further my article ‘Epistolography, Rhetoric and Letter Prescript: Romans 1.1-7 as a Test Case’, JSNT 65 (1997): 27-46, here 29-30, 34-8; and my commentary Kommentar till Nya testamentet: Romarbrevet 1–8 (KNT 6a; Stockholm: EFS-förlaget/Verbum, 2006), 17-18.



Byrskog The Apostolate in the Early Church

11

of debate and clarification. The letters to the Galatians and the Corinthians stand chronologically in between the two extremes.26 They were probably written after 1 Thessalonians and before Romans. In these letters Paul has every reason to develop and point to his special status as an apostle. In Galatians, which may be dated slightly after 1 Thessalonians in the beginning of the 50s,27 Paul stands alone as the named sender of the letter – only the anonymous body of all the brothers who are with him is added (1.2) – and emphatically describes himself as an apostle (1.1). Not even Barnabas is included, in spite of the fact that he plays an important role in the letter and perhaps was regarded as an apostle (2.1, 9, 13).28 Evidently, the two companions did not agree on all matters concerning their relationship to Jerusalem.29 Although no other credentials of Paul are mentioned in the opening of the letter, an emphatic statement that he is an apostle not from human beings nor through any human being but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, follows the reference to his apostleship (1.1). This negative and positive description of how he came to be an apostle is unique to the prescript of Galatians and responds in all likelihood to the opponents’ misguided view that he received his authority from certain Christian leaders before him. Probably they thought of the Jerusalem church and the Jerusalem apostles as instrumental in his apostleship (1.17–2.14). The way Paul puts Christ before God, which is unusual in his writings,30 might 26.  The letter to the Philippians was probably written after Romans. It contains no reference to Paul’s apostleship. The two senders are ‘slaves of Christ Jesus’ (1.1; cf. 2.22). In this way Paul initiates the exhortation to mutual service which he later gives by reference to Christ taking the form of a slave (2.1-11). The term ἀπόστολος is used only in its non-titular sense for Epaphroditus (2.25). The letter to Philemon is difficult to date. It contains no reference to Paul as an apostle. The reason is probably that it is a friendly petition to his co-worker Philemon and those who come together in his house, especially Apphia and Archippus, rather than an official letter with no personal addressee. 27.  So e.g. J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; London: Black, 1993), 7-8, 12-19. Dunn’s argument for dating the letter after 1 Thessalonians is partly Paul’s reference to his apostleship: ‘Paul’s normal practice of beginning by mentioning his apostleship must have started after he wrote to Thessalonica. And Galatians gives us the obvious starting point’ (p. 18). 28.  Cf. R. Bauckham, ‘Barnabas in Galatians’, JSNT 2 (1979): 61-70. 29.  Note the abrupt change from the first person plural (including Barnabas) to the first person singular in 2.10b. Paul argues here for his independence from the Jerusalem apostles and realizes that this was not attributable to Barnabas. Cf. already W. F. Lofthouse, ‘ “I” and “We” in the Pauline Letters’, EvT 64 (1952/53): 241-5, here 242. 30.  Cf. Rom. 1.7; 1 Cor. 1.3; 2 Cor. 1.2; Phil. 1.2; 1 Thess. 1.1.

12

Institutions of the Emerging Church

indicate that he is thinking back to his Damascus road experience – perhaps he projected his Christology onto it. It is true that Paul’s primary concern in this letter is not his gentile apostleship or mission, but his gospel.31 Yet this gospel is inseparably linked to his apostleship. An attack on his gospel is an attack on his apostleship. It is noteworthy that he begins the letter with an emphatic statement concerning its origin. No congregation in Jerusalem or Antioch had sent him, nor was any other apostle involved. In the face of false allegations concerning his gospel and apostleship, he fervently recalled and interpreted his mnemonic past in a way that rejected all human sources and agencies and focused solely on the transcendent foundation of his apostleship. The term ἀπόστολος appears more frequently in the Corinthian correspondence than in any other letter, a total of 16 times. Paul uses it of himself and of others, positively, as well as negatively of false apostles.32 Most likely opposing voices in the church had questioned his apostleship and challenged him to define and defend it. Both 1 and 2 Corinthians introduce him as an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, while the named co-senders are only said to be brothers. The genitive ‘Christ Jesus’ – the word-order is somewhat uncertain in 1 Cor. 1.1 – might be taken as a genitive of origin or a subjective genitive. Paul here gives a condensed version of what he stressed in Gal. 1.1. In 1 Cor. 1.1 he also adds that he is ‘called’ to be an apostle, indicating that he has now integrated into his apostolic self-consciousness the strong notion of divine vocation that was indicated in Gal. 1.15-16 and that was to be fully included into his apostolic credentials in Rom. 1.1. At this point in his career, he was forced to state clearly two basic apostolic criteria, namely, to have seen the Lord and to have established churches in new areas (1 Cor. 9.1-2). Although a thoroughly revelatory event, the former criterion places Paul on the same level as the Jerusalem apostles and among those whose commission was part of a sensual and mental perception of the real Jesus of history (1 Cor. 15.8).33 The second criterion defends him against false apostles who were boasting beyond limit in the labors of others (2 Cor. 10.13-16). In the 31.  So B. Lategan, ‘Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians?’, NTS 34 (1988): 411-30; Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, 11. Kim and Lategan fail to mention that the Christological component of Paul’s call to apostleship is more emphasized in the prescript of Galatians than in the corresponding verses of the other Pauline letters. 32.  For himself, cf. 1 Cor. 1.1; 9.1, 2; 15.9b; 2 Cor. 1.1; 12.12; for others whom he accepts as apostles, cf. 1 Cor. 4.9; 9.5; 12.28, 29; 15.7, 9a; 2 Cor. 8.23; for false apostles, cf. 2 Cor. 11.5, 13; 12.11. In 2 Cor. 11.13 he uses ψευδαπόστολος. 33.  For discussion, see my Story as History, 225-7.



Byrskog The Apostolate in the Early Church

13

letter to the Romans, it has become an entirely integrated part of his notion of mission (Rom. 15.20-21). The two criteria go together in Paul’s view, because the vision of the Lord must be related to a commission in order to qualify as an apostolic credential. It should come as no surprise that Paul is eager to portray and legitimate himself to the believers in Rome as an apostle. He now wishes to expand his mission. At the time of writing this letter, he had recently defined his notion of apostleship in a heated debate with two of his churches and therefore realized the importance of portraying himself properly when he for the first time wrote to strategically important groups of people whom he had never met. Moreover, he composed the letter while still in Corinth and integrated his experiences there into Romans in several other ways.34 The collegial Paul of 1 Thessalonians had faced opposition from other churches. Based on what he remembered to be his experience on the Damascus road, he therefore clarified his own special position as an apostle on equal terms with the Twelve in Jerusalem. The views of apostleship in the Pauline letters and in Luke–Acts are not contradictory. The differences are explainable as an attempt on the part of the Lukan author to secure the notion of apostleship from being distorted and turned into a flattened idea to be used by any charismatic emissary. Paul’s debate with opponents in Corinth shows that this tendency was emerging early. While Paul stressed that he had seen the Lord and therefore was an apostle of Jesus Christ, the Lukan author extended this seeing to the witnessing of all that which Jesus had said and done. While Paul pointed to the need to boast only of that which God has assigned to him, the Lukan author ended his reference to apostles by anchoring Paul’s mission within Jesus’ commission to the Twelve. Paul did not develop his notion in reaction against the Jerusalem apostles but in view of opposing voices in the churches that might have used the Jerusalem apostles against him. The Lukan author did not develop his view of apostleship against Paul but regarded him as an apostle and deepened the continuity of his mission with the commission of the twelve apostles. Both authors had the ambition to give a secure and well-defined place for the notion of apostleship. Overall, from 1 Thessalonians to the narrative of Luke–Acts, we detect an increasing awareness of the importance of the apostolic office. It is based on a visual encounter with Jesus Christ as the one who gives the call to a specific mission and it is aimed at anchoring the world-wide preaching in the decisive Christ-event of history.

34.  Cf. Byrskog, Romarbrevet 1–8, 186, 203, 210, 230.

14

Institutions of the Emerging Church

5. The Pauline Tradition This development parallels the one to be observed from a comparison between the undisputed Pauline letters and the Pauline tradition. Scholars have previously placed Luke–Acts close to the Pastorals.35 Being part of the Pauline tradition, they enhance Paul’s apostolic status in the prescripts and legitimate it by reference to Christ Jesus and the command or will of God (1 Tim. 1.1; 2 Tim. 1.1; Tit. 1.1-3). Moreover, no other apostle is mentioned. Paul is the one who has been entrusted to be the herald, apostle, and teacher of the gentiles (1 Tim. 2.7; 2 Tim. 1.11). About this he is emphatic; he does not lie (1 Tim. 2.7). Instead of detecting here an indication of a marked difference to the emphasis on the Twelve as apostles in Luke–Acts, we should notice that the Pastorals attribute precisely their function to Paul and make him the archetypal holder of the office and the one who guarantees the preservation of true tradition.36 The notion of the apostolate in the Pastorals, despite differences, thus resembles closely the one in Luke–Acts.37 A similar but more elaborate notion can be seen in Ephesians.38 Here the author elaborates upon what he found in the Pauline letters, especially in the Corinthian correspondence. He transforms the Pauline teaching into tradition and adjusts it to serve the ecclesiastical needs of his time. The prescript displays Pauline terminology that has been taken over unaltered (1.1). Paul, the implied author, is the sole sender of the letter and has his authority from being the imprisoned apostle to the gentiles.39 Yet, the three other instances of ἀπόστολος are used ecclesiologically (2.20; 3.5; 4.11). The author was familiar with the term from his hearing/reading of 1 and 2 Corinthians and developed its significance. First, instead of arguing that Paul is the master builder who had laid the foundation – Christ himself – on which others continue to build (1 Cor. 3.10-16), the author of Ephesians makes the apostles and the prophets the 35.  For discussion, see recently Riesner, ‘Once More: Luke–Acts and the Pastoral Epistles’, 239-58. 36.  For a useful discussion of similarities and dissimilarities between Luke–Acts and the Pastorals, cf. Roloff, Apostolat, 249, 269-71. 37.  So also Bühner, ‘ἀπόστολος’, 145. 38.  Colossians uses ἀπόστολος only in 1.1. 39.  This is especially evident in the emphatic ἐγώ of 3.1 and 4.1. See further my article ‘Ephesians 4:1-16 – Paraenesis and Identity Formation’, in Ethik als an­gewandte Ekklesiologie: Der Brief an die Epheser, ed. M. Wolter (Monographische Reihe von Benedictina; Biblisch-Ökumenische Abteilung 17; Rome: Benedictina Publishing, San Paolo fuori le mura, 2005), 109-38, here 117-18.



Byrskog The Apostolate in the Early Church

15

foundation (2.20).40 The apostles are probably a separate group (cf. 4.11). Together with the prophets, they are the primary recipients of revelation. Secondly, the author regards them to be ‘his holy apostles’ (3.5).41 This is an elaboration of Col. 1.26. The phrase ‘his holy ones’ is in Ephesians interpreted as ‘his holy apostles’. ‘His’ probably refers to Christ in the previous verse.42 While all believers are regarded as holy in the Pauline letters, Ephesians characterizes the apostles as specially set apart to receive revelation. Finally, they are Christ’s gift to the church (4.11). The author develops the Pauline view (cf. 1 Cor. 12.28) and strengthens the focus on Christ as the one who gave gifts, descended, and ascended.43 Emphatically he points out that Christ himself provided (καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν) the apostles. Taken as a whole, the author has a very high conception of the apostles. The term ἀπόστολος is a proper title, for Paul as well as for others. They all had a foundational role in that they provided the decisive link to the risen Christ and gave the foundational interpretation of what God had done in Christ for the edification of the church. They were, in other words, those to whom the mystery of Christ was revealed in order that it may be proclaimed to the gentiles. To be noted is that in all three instances where the author of Ephesians uses the term ἀπόστολος in the plural, he mentions the apostles together with the prophets. This is not an indication that he broadened and blurred the specific role of the apostles to become that of traveling missionaries or delegates of local churches, such as we find in Did. 11.3-6. The apostles and the prophets relate in Ephesians to the universal church. Rather, in this way the author puts himself in line with and develops the Pauline tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 12.28) and reminds us of the apostles and prophets in the church of Antioch according to Acts 13.1-3; 14.4, 14. Although it is not possible to trace a consistent tradition about church leadership from these passages,44 the consistent combination of the two categories brings the vision of Ephesians close to the Lukan view of the Twelve and Paul. 40.  With the majority of commentators, I take the genitive τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν to be appositional. 41.  The term ‘holy’ divides the phrase ‘apostles and prophets’ instead of coming after it and therefore probably refers only to the apostles. 42.  Some commentators point to the passive form of the verb ἀπεκαλύφθη and to God as the original reference in Col. 1.26. However, the verse should be heard/read in its present context and the passive form does not exclude a reference to Christ. 43.  Byrskog, ‘Ephesians 4:1-16’, 121-2. 44.  Cf. H. Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt nach dem Epheserbrief (SANT 33; Munich: Kösel, 1973), 249-87. Merklein has been rightly criticized for building too confidently on the rather meagre evidence.

16

Institutions of the Emerging Church

While Luke–Acts enhances the Twelve as apostles and depicts Paul’s mission to the gentiles to be a continuation of their role as witnesses to the end of the earth, Ephesians combines the two ideas of the Twelve and of Paul without mentioning the Twelve explicitly and without thinking of a sequential extension. The author instead integrates them to the extent that Paul and other apostles are on equal footing as recipients of divine revelation. The two variations indicate but two complementary ways in which the apostolic office emerging with Paul in the 50s was secured and developed in view of the church’s expansion and elevation.45 6. From Luke–Acts to the Pauline Tradition The Lukan view, it has been argued, did not appear in a vacuum. The double notion of the Christian apostleship, which was narratively resolved in Acts 15, relates in subtle ways to a broader spectrum of trajectories concerning being a Christian apostle. While the author of Luke–Acts noticed and accepted the occasional Markan notion of the Twelve as apostles, his own sophisticated view goes much further and is significantly similar and dissimilar to the view that emerged during and after Paul’s conflicts in Galatia and Corinth. Whatever the exact identity of the opponents and the false apostles whom Paul faced there, the Christian apostolate seems to be an idea that surfaced gradually as he reflected on and defended his own status vis-à-vis the churches. This is not to say that there were no apostles before him – he clearly thought there were – and that the apostolate originated through conflict. Yet Paul made it prolific and initiated a trajectory that decisively based the Christian apostolate on the visual encounter with Jesus Christ and his call to mission and that related the world-wide preaching to the all-important Christ-event of history. For the author of Luke–Acts the encounter included the witnessing of all that which Jesus had said and done; and the world-wide preaching became an important component of his narrative strategy of anchoring Paul’s mission within Jesus’ commission to the twelve apostles as the ones who legitimately secured the continuity with Jesus of history. The prolific development that is evident in Luke–Acts was part of a movement where Paul’s epistolary teaching became a venerated tradition. The Pastorals attribute the function of the twelve apostles to Paul exclusively and make him the archetypal apostolic foundation of true tradition. In Ephesians the development comes to an ecclesiological climax. The 45.  The book of Revelation adds nothing significant to this development. Cf. Rev. 2.2; 18.20; 21.14.



Byrskog The Apostolate in the Early Church

17

author creates a vision that transforms the Pauline teaching into one that makes Paul and others the foundational recipients of divine revelation and enhances the church to dimensions that include the entire world. Thus, the roots of the Christian apostolate in Jesus’ own mission come into view mainly retrospectively. The risen Christ is of vital importance and the activity of Jesus and his disciples receives apostolic features mainly through the need to historicize the apostolate, eventually to the extent that Jesus himself is said to be an apostle (Heb. 3.1). The precise historical origin of the Christian apostolate is shrouded in darkness. Already in 1947 even the learned church historian and patristic scholar Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen failed to explain it: ‘Die frühesten Anfänge des Apostolats in der Urgemeinde haben wir nicht geklärt. Hier sind nur Vermutungen möglich, die sich beim Mangel primärer Quellen wohl niemals zu wirklicher Gewißheit erheben lassen.’46 Only assumptions are possible. Von Campenhausen’s comments have not prevented other scholars from producing bold statements where a sufficient, be that in the attempt to trace it back to the historical Jesus or in the effort to look for its origin in the shadowy contours of Paul’s opponents. In each case various kinds of background material has been scrutinized in order to give the specifically Christian apostolate a broader ramification and sharper focus. Perhaps the underlying reason for this quest for historical origins is the extraordinary theological importance of the subject. However, once we realize that history and theology are intertwined in more complex ways than in terms of first reconstruction and then theology, the one-dimensional search for the genesis of the early Christian apostolate may be replaced with sensitivity to the presence of multidimensional trajectories and subtle forms of interaction. The endeavour to trace the early Christian apostolate from Luke–Acts to the Pastorals reveals, whatever its origin, a fascinating landscape of interrelated concepts, indicating the on-going struggle to find legitimate ways of defining the foundation and identity of the church in the midst of expanding horizons of what its mission to the world involves.

46.  ‘Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff’, 127.

‘ H old

fast to the traditions that you were taught by us ’ : The N otion of a Common Apostolic Tradition in the Pauline Letters * Reidar Hvalvik

1. Introduction Around AD 200 the North African writer Tertullian wrote that the twelve apostles of Christ were first sent out through Judea, bearing witness of their faith in Jesus Christ and founding churches and then out into the world proclaiming the same doctrine of the same faith (eamdem doctrinam eiusdem fidei) to the nations. Again they set up churches in every city, from which the other churches afterwards borrowed the transmission of faith and the seeds of doctrine and continue to borrow them every day, in order to become churches. By this they are themselves reckoned apostolic as being offspring of apostolic churches. Things of every kind must be classed according to their origin. These churches then, numerous as they are, are identical with that one primitive apostolic Church from which they all come. All are primitive and all apostolic. Their common unity is proved by fellowship in communion, by the name of brother and the mutual pledge of hospitality – rights which are governed by no other principle than the single tradition (una traditio) of a common creed. (Praescr. 20)1

The same faith being proclaimed all over the world, based on the same apostolic tradition. This is how Tertullian paints the picture of early church history. With its emphasis on unity and continuity this picture differs considerably from what modern scholarship teaches us, focusing

*  This study was completed in February 2007. 1.  Translation from Early Latin Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Jerome, ed. S. L. Greenslade (London: SCM, 1956).

20

Institutions of the Emerging Church

on diversity and plurality. Recently it has not been uncommon for scholars to state that in antiquity there was no such thing as Christianity, but rather Christianities.2 This reality was not, however, unknown to Tertullian and other ecclesiastical writers – though they used a distinctively different terminology when describing it. They were very much aware of people who claimed to have the true faith and doctrine, but since this doctrine differed from the transmitted tradition in the churches, it was labelled heresy. In other words, in Tertullian’s picture there was a normative element that delimited the Christian faith and thus the boundaries of the church. This normative element was the apostolic tradition and the rule of faith (regula fidei), a summary of the apostolic preaching.3 Tertullian was certainly not the first writer to think and argue along these lines. We find a similar argument in Irenaeus, who stresses the transmission of tradition from the apostles to the following generations. He says that ‘the apostolic tradition in the church and the preaching of the truth have come down to us’ (Adv. Haer. 3.3.3) and stresses that throughout the many churches in the world the tradition is one and the same (Adv. Haer. 1.10.2). The earliest occurrence of the term ‘apostolic tradition’ is found in Ad Diognetum which may date from about AD 150. In chapter 11, the anonymous author – who in fact may be bishop Polycarp of Smyrna4 – calls himself ‘a disciple of the apostles’, and refers to how ‘the tradition of the apostles is guarded (ἀποστόλων παράδοσις φυλάσσεται)’ among the Christians (Diogn. 11.6).5 The use of the verb φυλάσσειν (keep, obey, guard) should be noted since it indicates the authoritative character of the teaching in question; it is a verb elsewhere used in relation to, for example, the Mosaic Law (cf. Rom. 2.26; Gal. 6.13).

2.  Cf. titles like B. D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) and Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities, ed. W. Braun (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005). 3.  Cf. Praescr. 13 and Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.10.1. 4.  See C. E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum (WUNT 186; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Hill also presents good arguments for the unity of the writing, though he recognizes two lacunae in the manuscript. 5.  Translations from the Apostolic Fathers are quoted from The Apostolic Fathers, ed. B. D. Ehrman (LCL; 2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003).



Hvalvik ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’

21

In another writing, certainly by bishop Polycarp, we find a similar expression. In his letter to the Philippians Polycarp argues against heresies, and urges his readers: ‘And so, let us leave behind the idle speculation of the multitudes and false teachings and turn to the word that was delivered to us from the beginning (τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον)’ (Polycarp, Phil. 7.2). Polycarp does not use the term (apostolic) ‘tradition’ but the verb παραδιδόναι (pass on, transmit) and the opposition to false doctrines makes it clear that we have a notion similar to apostolic tradition. The texts quoted so far present a rather comprehensive picture of what is meant by apostolic tradition. The term refers to authoritative teaching handed down in the churches, going back to the apostles, whose authority is recognized in the early church (cf. already Rev. 21.14; 2 Pet. 3.2). Tradition is linked with authority and thus has a normative character; it has to be followed, obeyed and preserved. Its normative character means, of course, that it is universal and ecumenical. Where does this notion of a common apostolic tradition come from? This is the question we will pursue in this essay, and we will look for the answer in the corpus Paulinum. The concern for the transmitted teaching and the pure doctrine found in the Pastoral Epistles (cf. 1 Tim. 4.6; 6.3, 20; 2 Tim. 1.13-14; 2.2; 4.3; Tit. 2.1) may immediately come to mind, but here it will be argued that central elements in the early Christian notion of an apostolic tradition can in fact also be documented in the undisputed and less disputed letters within the Pauline corpus.6 2. ‘This is my rule in all the churches’ Very early on Paul was seen as an authority in the Christian communities. An early testimony is found in Ignatius. He puts Paul on the same level as the spokesman of the original twelve apostles, and says: ‘I am not enjoining (διατάσσομαι) you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned’ (Ignatius, Rom. 4.3). No doubt the many letters linked to Paul’s name were of great importance for his reputation. In these letters he appears as an authority, inter alia because he directly refers to his apostleship and because he uses language that indicates authority.

6.  The main focus will be on the undisputed letters of Paul. 2 Thessalonians will, however, be treated as an authentic letter. For a thorough advocacy of Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, see A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 349-75; cf. also W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (rev. ed.; trans. H. C. Kee; London: SCM, 1975), 264-9.

22

Institutions of the Emerging Church

In most of his writings, Paul refers to himself as an apostle in the opening of the letter.7 Thus he makes it clear that his writing is something more than a private communication; it has an ‘official’ character because it is written by an apostle of Christ. ‘Paul saw himself as a representative of Christ ministering between the Lord and the people of the ecclesiae. It was an authoritative position in the religious community similar to that of numerous officials in the secular world.’8 Paul had an authority from God, who had called him to be an apostle of Christ (Rom. 1.1-5; 1 Cor. 1.1; 2 Cor. 1.1; Gal. 1.1). This is the basis for Paul’s whole ministry, including his letter writing.9 For that reason it is somewhat near-sighted when van Aarde says: ‘Nowhere does he give orders to others or expect their compliance on the grounds of calling himself an apostle’.10 There was thus no need to repeat this when he formulated concrete instructions for his churches. It was a presupposition. Paul seldom highlights his authority, but in a context where his apostleship is in focus, Paul speaks about his ἐξουσία for building up and not tearing down (2 Cor. 10.8; 13.10). While the word ἐξουσία sometimes refers to the apostle’s rights (cf. 1 Cor. 9.4-6, 18; 2 Thess. 3.9), in these texts it refers to his authority ‘to preach the gospel and to command and discipline the members of the congregation’, as V. P. Furnish has appropriately phrased it.11 In other words, being an apostle implied the giving of instructions for the Christian life in and outside the congregation. Often this is done in a markedly non-authoritative way, even if Paul is aware of his apostolic authority, such as in 1 Thess. 2.7: ‘…even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority’ (NASB). The exact 7.  The exactness of this statement is, of course, dependent on how many of the Pauline letters one holds to be authentic. Among the thirteen letters in the Corpus Paulinum four lack the title ‘apostle’: 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon. In 1 Thessalonians, however, Paul’s position as apostle is emphasized in 2.7. 8.  M. L. Stirewalt, Jr., Paul, the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 25-6. 9.  This becomes evident when circumstances made it necessary for Paul to comment on his apostleship (cf. Gal. 1–2; 1 Cor. 9; 2 Cor. 10–13; Rom. 1). Elsewhere it seems to be an unspoken presupposition, which sometimes made it unnecessary to use the title ‘apostle’ in the letter opening. 10.  A. G. van Aarde, ‘The Struggle Against Heresy in the Thessalonian Correspon­ dence and the Origin of the Apostolic Tradition’, in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. R. F. Collins (BETL 87; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 418-25, here 420. Van Aarde quotes E. Best for a similar statement, but Best’s saying is much more guarded when read in its context; cf. ‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority’, JSNT 27 (1986): 3-25, here 11-12. 11.  V. P. Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 477.



Hvalvik ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’

23

mean­ing of the phrase (ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι) is disputed. Some commentators think it refers to the right to financial support from the churches (cf. 1 Cor. 9.3-18; 2 Thess. 3.7-9),12 but the contrast with acting like a nurse (or mother) makes it more probable that Paul is speaking generally about the possibility of wielding authority.13 It is, however, a general feature in Paul’s ministry that he abstains from using his right and demonstrating his authority. We have another example in Phlm. 8-9: ‘…though I am bold enough in Christ to command (ἐπιτάσσειν) you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love’.14 The verb ἐπιτάσσειν means to ‘command with authority’ (BDAG), and undoubtedly refers to Paul’s God-given authority.15 In other words, Paul has authority, but he refrains from using it. A similar situation is detected in connection with the noun ἐπιταγή (BDAG: ‘authoritative directive, command, order, injunction’). Paul uses the word three times in his exhortations to the Corinthians, but twice he stresses that what he says is not a command (1 Cor. 7.6; 2 Cor. 8.8); the third refers to a command from the Lord, or more precisely, the lack of such a command (concerning the virgins; 1 Cor. 7.25).16 In other connections, however, he utilizes terminology that more directly reveals his authority. This is evident when he uses the words διατάσσειν and παραγγέλλειν. The former verb means ‘to give (detailed) instructions as to what must be done, order’ (BDAG), and Paul uses it generally of the instructions he gives to the Christian communities (1 Cor. 7.17; 11.34; 16.1). The second verb (παραγγέλλειν) means ‘to give orders’, ‘command’, and is actually from military vocabulary.17 Paul uses this word several times in his instructions to the churches, especially 12.  So e.g. F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Waco: Word, 1982), 30-1. For an evaluation of the argument and a different conclusion, see G. L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (PiNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 125. 13.  I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 68; C. A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 99; cf. E. Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1972), 100. For another (less convincing) interpretation, see Malherbe, Thessalonians, 144. 14.  Unless otherwise indicated, scripture quotations are from the NRSV. 15.  Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an Philemon (EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger, 1975), 37; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 34C; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 104. 16.  In 1 Tim. 1.1 and Tit. 1.3 the word refers to God’s, not the apostle’s command (cf. Rom. 16.26). 17.  C. J. Bjerkelund, Parakalō: Studien zu Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalōSätze in den paulinischen Briefen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967), 138. The verb may, however, be used ‘of all kinds of persons in authority’ (BDAG).

24

Institutions of the Emerging Church

in relation to ethical questions (1 Cor. 7.10; 11.17; 1 Thess. 4.11; 2 Thess. 3.4, 6, 10, 12; cf. the use of παραγγελία in 1 Thess. 4.2). In short: ‘Paul commands and expects that he will be obeyed’ (cf. 2 Thess. 3.4).18 Among the occurrences of διατάσσειν, its use in 1 Cor. 7.17 is of special interest because there Paul stresses the universal or ‘ecumenical’ character of his instruction. Paul exhorts his readers to live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each of them. Then he adds: ‘This is my rule in all the churches (καὶ οὕτως ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις διατάσσομαι)’. The point is clear: he is not presenting them with a special rule applicable only in Corinth.19 What he instructs has validity in all his churches. The same point is also made in 1 Cor. 4. There Paul writes: I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me (μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε). For this reason I sent you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church (ὃς ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει τὰς ὁδούς μου τὰς ἐν Χριστῷ, καθὼς πανταχοῦ ἐν πάσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ διδάσκω). (1 Cor. 4.16-17)

The expression ‘my ways in Christ’ certainly refers to both Paul’s behaviour and teaching.20 This interpretation is in agreement with Paul’s statement in Phil. 4.9: ‘Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me (ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί), and the God of peace will be with you’ (cf. also 2 Tim. 3.10-11). The first two terms denote the ethical substance of Paul’s catechesis and the two last refer to his ‘practical conduct embodying that teaching among the Philippians’.21 Paul is living as he is teaching, and both through his instructions and through his behaviour he is transmitting authoritative teaching.22 18.  Best, ‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority’, 13. 19.  Cf. A. Lindemann’s commentary on 1 Cor. 7.17: ‘In 17c ergänzt Paulus, daß er dies in allen Kirchen dauernd anordnet…, daß er also von den Korinthern nichts Außergewöhnliches verlangt’; Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9/1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 170. 20.  So rightly G. D. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 189; W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKKNT 7; 4 vols.; Zurich: Benziger, 1991–2001), 1:359; Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief, 116. While the reference to imitation in v. 16 most clearly points to behaviour, the explanatory καθώς clause including the verb διδάσκειν in v. 17b favours the sense ‘teaching’. 21.  M. N. A. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 255. 22.  Cf. D. M. Stanley, ‘ “Become Imitators of Me”: The Pauline Conception of Apostolic Tradition’, Bib 40 (1959): 859-77.



Hvalvik ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’

25

Timothy’s task in Corinth was to remind (ἀναμιμνῄσκειν) the believers of what Paul earlier had taught them. Similarly Paul reminds the Philippians of what they had ‘learned and received and heard and seen’ from him (4.9). In the last text Paul utilizes a verb (παραλαμβάνειν) that belongs to the termini technici for transmission and reception of tradition. While παραλαμβάνειν means ‘receive’, παραδιδόναι is often used in the sense ‘deliver’/‘hand on’ παράδοσις (‘tradition’).23 These terms are primarily associated with two well-known texts in 1 Corinthians where Paul directly says that he is handing on tradition he himself has received (11.23; 15.1-3; see below). This is not the case in Phil. 4.9; nevertheless Paul refers to what they have ‘learned and received’ from him, using terminology associated with tradition. This is hardly accidental. It is rather a way for Paul to emphasize that his instructions are binding. As an apostle, authorized by God, Paul likely sees himself as a source of tradition, i.e. as a source of authoritative teaching.24 This is probably also the case in Gal. 1.9. In a context where Paul expresses astonishment at the Galatians’ turning to ‘another gospel’, he says: ‘If anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received (παρ’ ὃ παρελάβετε), let that one be accursed!’ By using terminology that refers to the process of handing on tradition, Paul is emphasizing the normative character of his preaching. He has preached the true gospel, ‘the absolute norm enabling one to identify a different gospel as false’.25 Against this norm every proclamation of the gospel should be measured – even Paul’s own preaching (cf. v. 8). Though the content of this true gospel is not spelled out in the introduction, it can be grasped from the letter as a whole. Even if Paul, at least indirectly, refers to the gospel as tradition, in Galatians he does not put himself in a chain of transmission, as he does in 1 Cor. 15.1-3. In Galatians Paul’s concern is not the gospel as a message transmitted from the first followers of Jesus, but as divine revelation. In 23.  The verbs are used in a variety of ways, but when used with words for saying, teaching etc., they are technical terms for the transmission of tradition. On these terms and their equivalents in rabbinical literature, see e.g. B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (ASNU 22; Lund: Gleerup, 1961), 288, and W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (4th ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 248-9. 24.  So also K. Wegenast, Das Verständnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen (WMANT 8; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962), 115. 25.  J. L. Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 115.

26

Institutions of the Emerging Church

Gal. 1.11-12 he stresses that his gospel was not received from human beings; he ‘received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ (δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)’. Or, as Paul says in 1.16, God revealed his Son to him, and from this experience Paul proclaimed the gospel. Again one can say that Paul is the source of tradition, though its ultimate source is God and his Son. Another text where Paul possibly refers to his own preaching/teaching as tradition is 1 Cor. 11.2. In what is probably a kind of captatio benevolentiae,26 he says: ‘I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (τὰς παραδόσεις) just as I handed them on to you (παρέδωκα ὑμῖν)’. What kind of traditions Paul has in mind is not stated, but the context clearly points to ethical (halakic27) instructions.28 Nor is the source of the traditions mentioned, but Paul’s reference to the Corinthians’ remembrance of him makes it likely that he is referring to his own instructions.29 This, however, does not prevent the traditions from being understood as ‘Gemeingut der Kirche’, to use Schlatter’s phrase.30 Since Paul emphasizes several times that his teaching is the same in every church, his teaching is, by definition, something that the churches – at least those founded by Paul – have in common (cf. also 11.16b). That Paul’s teaching has the character of tradition, i.e. authoritative teaching transmitted in the churches, is even more evident in two passages from 2 Thessalonians. In 2.15 we read: ‘So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us (κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε), either by word of mouth or by our letter’. In a situation where the believers in Thessalonica were alarmed at certain rumours about the parousia of Christ, Paul had to remind them of what he earlier had said (cf. 2.5) and ask them to hold fast to what he had taught either orally or in his letter. Again he refers to this teaching as ‘traditions’ and thus stresses its currency, continuity, and authority.31 The normative character of the traditions is also seen in 3.6 where Paul writes: ‘Now we command (παραγγέλλομεν) you, beloved, in the name of our

26.  Cf. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 500. 27.  Cf. the use of the verb περιπατεῖν (walk) of the Christian way of life in Paul’s letters (e.g. Rom. 13.13; 14.15; 1 Cor. 7.17; Gal. 5.16; Phil. 3.17; 1 Thess. 2.12; 4.1; cf. Col. 1.10; 2.6; Eph. 4.1; 5.2, 8). 28.  L. Goppelt, ‘Tradition nach Paulus’, KD 4 (1958): 213-33, here 226. 29.  Cf. Wegenast, Tradition, 111. 30.  A. Schlatter, Paulus, der Bote Jesu: Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther (4th ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969), 308; quoted with approval by Goppelt, ‘Tradition nach Paulus’, 226. 31.  Cf. Malherbe, Thessalonians, 440.



Hvalvik ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’

27

Lord Jesus Christ (ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ’Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ), to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us (κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ’ ἡμῶν)’. The authority behind the command – and behind the tradition Paul is referring to – is made clear by the addition of ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (cf. v. 12). As a representative and apostle of Christ, Paul speaks on Christ’s behalf.32 In these texts from 2 Thessalonians we find references to what Paul earlier has taught orally or by letter (2.15), and to the traditions the addressees have received from him (3.6). In addition Paul refers to his own example (3.9). According to W. Trilling all these features sustain the letter’s pseudo-Pauline character.33 His attempt to present these features as non-Pauline is, however, far from convincing. As we have seen above, Paul several times refers to his own teaching as tradition, and sees his own example as part of that tradition. There is certainly a strong emphasis on tradition in 2 Thessalonians, but there is nothing really new compared with what we find in the undisputed letters,34 especially 1 Corinthians,35 and it is to the latter that we shall once more return. 3. ‘For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you’ As is often noted, Paul says next to nothing about the ‘historical’ Jesus. This has led some scholars to argue that Paul had no interest in the traditions of the earthly ministry of Jesus.36 This is hardly accurate. Even if there are relatively few explicit references to the synoptic tradition in the Pauline letters, it seems clear that there are more links between Paul and

32.  Cf. a similar expression in 1 Cor. 5.3-5 where Paul pronounces a judgment concerning excommunication. 33.  W. Trilling, Untersuchungen zum zweiten Thessalonicherbrief (ETS 27; Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1972), 115-21 and Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT 14; Zurich: Benziger, 1980), 128-30, 142, 145-6. 34.  The only unique element is the reference to Paul’s earlier letter (2.15). There is, however, no basis for Trilling’s claim (Der zweite Brief, 129) that this is a first step in the canonization of the Pauline letters. For criticism, see Marshall, Thessalonians, 209-10, 219. 35.  Wegenast, Tradition, 118-19; cf. C. Vander Stichele, ‘The Concept of Tradition and 1 and 2 Thessalonians’, in Collins, ed., The Thessalonian Correspondence, 499-504. 36.  Cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; 2 vols.; London: SCM, 1952–1955), 1:187-9, 293-4.

28

Institutions of the Emerging Church

the life and teaching of Jesus than what is sometimes assumed.37 This is not the place to deal with this question any further; we shall only give a few comments on Paul’s use of Jesus tradition. The most important examples are found in 1 Corinthians. In 1 Cor. 15.1 Paul writes: ‘Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received (ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε), in which also you stand’. And he goes on in v. 3: ‘For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received (παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον): that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures’. This formulation leaves no room for doubt that Paul here is quoting a pre-Pauline tradition.38 The gospel he had preached in Corinth was a summary of the gospel he himself had received – obviously from those who were apostles before him. Even if Paul in Galatians can stress that God revealed the gospel to him, he does not say that God provided him with all kind of facts about Jesus and his ministry. What was revealed to him was certainly the astonishing fact that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Pharisee Saul held to be a deceiver, was the Son of God and that salvation was obtained through faith in him, not through observance of the Law. This is the core of the gospel that Paul embellishes in Galatians. However, Paul certainly had to obtain traditions from and about Jesus through normal channels, i.e. through human mediators. Among them was obviously Peter, the only one Paul admits that he visited in Jerusalem (beside James; Gal. 1.18-19). When Paul says that he went to Jerusalem ‘to visit (ἱστορῆσαι) Cephas’, it is more than likely that this involved getting information about Jesus.39 Paul’s knowledge of traditions about Jesus is also confirmed by 1 Cor. 11.23: ‘For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you (’Εγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν), that the Lord Jesus 37.  See in particular D. L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); D. Wenham, Paul – Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); and J. D. G. Dunn, ‘Jesus Tradition in Paul’, in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 155-78. 38.  Cf. e.g. A. Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians (ConBNT 29; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998), 87 and the literature mentioned there. 39.  The verb ἱστορεῖν may also have the sense ‘to get information from’; cf. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 298; J. D. G. Dunn, ‘The Relationship Between Paul and Jerusalem According to Galatians 1 and 2’, NTS 28 (1982): 461-78, here 463-6.



Hvalvik ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’

29

on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread…’ Again the terminology shows that Paul refers to a tradition that has been transmitted to him through the earliest followers of Jesus, though it ultimately goes back to the Lord himself – and that is, of course, Paul’s main point. These two well-known examples of Jesus tradition in 1 Corinthians are illuminating. Both in ch. 11 and ch. 15 Paul is dealing with specific problems in the Corinthian church – the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the teaching about the resurrection. Ironically, it is thanks to the disorder in connection with the eucharist that we know anything about its celebration in the Pauline churches. If the Corinthians had behaved correctly when they came together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, the subject would not have been treated in Paul’s extant letters – and there would certainly have been some scholars maintaining that this rite was unknown in the Pauline churches. This is a strong reminder that Paul’s letters often came into being as a direct response to situations arising among the believers to whom the letters were addressed. This fact should not, however, mislead us into thinking that Paul’s teaching to his churches was occasional and arbitrary. In all probability his fundamental teaching was rather comprehensive. This is confirmed by what Paul says both in 1 Cor. 11 and 15. Faced with the particular problems in the church, Paul argues by referring to what he had already taught them. Both in 1 Cor. 11.23 and 15.3 Paul refers to traditions that he had delivered to them earlier, reminding them of what they already knew (cf. 1 Thess. 4.1-2; 2 Thess. 3.7). In these two texts (and several others) Paul clearly presupposes a basic tradition that he had delivered to his churches. Within the Pauline churches we should therefore allow for a common ‘catechetical’ instruction.40 Several times in 1 Corinthians the universality of the tradition is used as an argument over against the addressees: Paul exhorts them to follow the common tradition (cf. 7.17; 11.16; 14.33-34). More than any other of Paul’s writings, this letter has an ‘ecumenical’ character.41 This is not accidental. For a church that is both 40.  Based on the existence of leges sacrae for Greek guilds and cultic organisations in antiquity, J. C. Hanges has even proposed that the church in Corinth had written bylaws, a kind of foundational document ‘in which Paul had laid out those guidelines and principles which he felt necessary for the group’s prosperity’. See ‘1 Corinthians 4:6 and the Possibility of Written Bylaws in the Corinthian Church’, JBL 117 (1998): 275-98, here 298. 41.  On this aspect, cf. R. Hvalvik, ‘All Those Who in Every Place Call on the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ: The Unity of the Pauline Churches’, in The Formation of the Early Church, ed. J. Ådna (WUNT 183; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 123-43, here 133-8.

30

Institutions of the Emerging Church

divided and obstinate, Paul finds it necessary to remind its members that they belong to a greater fellowship. And with a view to those who tried to play Cephas or Apollos off against himself (cf. 1.12), Paul reminds them of the fact that his own teaching and preaching is in line with common tradition.42 This is probably an important factor behind the relatively many references to Jesus tradition in 1 Corinthians.43 This was something they all had in common: the same received παράδοσις. That this is Paul’s point is evident in 1 Cor. 15. Referring to the other apostles and witnesses,44 he says: ‘Therefore, whether it be45 I or they (εἴτε οὖν ἐγὼ εἴτε ἐκεῖνοι), so (οὕτως) we preach and so you believed’ (1 Cor. 15.11 NAB). Many commentators think that οὕτως refers back to the tradition quoted in 15.3b-5 (and its expansion by Paul),46 but it could also be understood in a more comprehensive way.47 Fee stresses the present tense of the verb κηρύσσειν, and says: ‘With these words, therefore, he is not simply identifying the gospel with the creed of vv. 3-5, but he is also tying it both to his own apostleship and to the common preaching of all the apostles – and therefore by implication suggesting that this is the gospel held in common by all who believe in Christ’.48 In other words, what Paul 42.  Cf. M. M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (HUT 28; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), 287: ‘Paul relativizes the differences between the competing missionaries (to whom the Corinthians claimed allegiance) in service of the unity which they share in common tradition’. 43.  In addition to the texts mentioned above, note also Paul’s references to the Lord’s word or command in 1 Cor. 7.10; 9.14; 14.37. 44.  This seems to be the meaning of ἐκεῖνοι since they are mentioned earlier as witnesses to the resurrected Christ. 45.  Most translations have the (rather misleading) past tense ‘whether then it was I or they’. The Greek has no verb, and if a verb is to be added, it should take the present tense – corresponding to the present tense of the following verb κηρύσσειν. Thiselton stresses that ‘the implied verb is one of logic, not of past description’; A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1213. 46.  So H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (trans. J. W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 260; cf. Chr. Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther: Zweiter Teil: Auslegung der Kapitel 8-16 (THKNT 7/2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlags­ anstalt, 1982), 171. 47.  So A. Strobel, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (ZB 6.1; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989), 238: ‘Die Redeweise ist umgreifender gemeint, keineswegs nur als Bezug auf den Zeugenkatalog, sondern als Bezug auf das Zeugnis vom Gekreuzigten und Auferstandenen’. Cf. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 4:71. 48.  Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 736.



Hvalvik ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’

31

once delivered to them is the same gospel preached presently by him and all the other apostles. And this is the standard against which the Corinthian heresy (cf. 15.12) is to be measured. Paul is not advocating a special doctrine of his own. No, he is advocating a common apostolic tradition. Evidently Paul assumes that what he teaches basically does not differ from what was taught by other apostles and missionaries. This conviction seems also to be confirmed in the letter to the Romans. 4. A Common Apostolic Tradition: The Faith of the Romans Among the undisputed letters of Paul Romans stands out as atypical – for the simple reason that it is addressed to a church that he himself did not found. This means that Paul in this letter cannot refer to what he has earlier taught or delivered to the addressees. Nevertheless, this very letter contains two positive references to what the Romans have earlier been taught, Rom. 6.17 and 16.17. Both texts have severe problems, however, and require a rather lengthy comment. In the first text, Rom. 6.17, our interest is connected to the complex latter part of the verse. In NRSV the text reads: ‘But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted (ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς)’. The fact that the clause is rather awkward has led some to suggest that it is a later interpolation.49 There is, however, nothing in the manuscript tradition to support such a view. Besides, the unpolished character of the clause rather suggests its genuineness: it is hard to imagine that a scribe should have inserted such an awkward addition.50 With a great majority of commentators we thus hold the text to be original.51 There are, however, several difficulties connected with the interpretation of the verse, both related to its awkward syntax and the strange expression τύπος διδαχῆς. 49.  R. Bultmann, ‘Glossen im Römerbrief’, TLZ 72 (1947): 202. Bultmann has been followed by a few scholars, most recently R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (assisted by R. D. Kotansky; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 419. 50.  T. R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 335. 51.  See the discussion in H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 209-10; E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 180-1; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (EKKNT 6; 3 vols.; Zurich: Benziger, 1978–1982), 2:35, and in particular R. A. J. Gagnon, ‘Heart of Wax and a Teaching That Stamps: τυποσ διδαχησ (Rom 6.17b) Once More’, JBL 112 (1993): 667-87, here 671-3. This thorough article is probably the best treatment of the text so far.

32

Institutions of the Emerging Church

With regard to the syntax, it is most likely that τύπον διδαχῆς is the object of the verb ‘have become obedient’. This means that the sentence should be resolved as follows: ὑπηκούσατε τῷ τύπῳ τῆς διδαχῆς εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε.52 This reading does not, however, solve the awkward phrase εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε. It would certainly be tempting to think that the meaning was ‘which was delivered (to) you’ (KJV),53 but that would require the reading ὃς παρεδόθη ὑμῖν.54 Such a reading would fit Paul’s reference to teaching and his use of παραδιδόναι in the sense of ‘hand on’ tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11.2, 23; 15.3). It should, however, be noted that παραδιδόναι is more often used in the sense of handing over to another authority or power (cf. e.g. Rom. 1.24, 26, 28; 1 Cor. 5.5; 13.3; 15.24). This meaning is appropriate in Rom. 6 since the imagery is of the transfer of a slave’s ownership.55 Stressing this point Beare says: ‘The verb παραδίδωμι is to be interpreted wholly in relation to the figure of the transfer of the slave from one master to another, without any thought, without even an overtone, of the transmitting of tradition’.56 There can be no doubt about the main point: both the wording of the text and Paul’s imagery in the nearest context require the translation ‘to which you were handed over (to be its slaves)’. I do not, however, think it is right to deny even the slightest ‘overtone’ of the sense ‘hand on tradition’. On the contrary, in light of Paul’s use of the verb elsewhere (in connection with teaching/tradition) I think it is likely that he played on the different meanings of the word, with the following implication: the readers are handed over to the teaching that once was handed over to them.57 To be handed over to a teaching still sounds strange, but the expression may 52.  Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 208; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975–79), 324; Wilckens, Römer, 2:36. 53.  So e.g. J. Moffatt, ‘The Interpretation of Romans 6.17-18’, JBL 48 (1929): 233-8; H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (trans. J. R. de Witt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 240. 54.  Cf. Moffatt, ‘Romans 6.17-18’, 235. 55.  Cranfield, Romans, 324; J. D. G. Dunn, Romans (WBC 28A–B; 2 vols.; Dallas: Word, 1988), 1:344. 56.  F. W. Beare, ‘On the Interpretation of Romans 6.17’, NTS 5 (1958–59): 206-10, here 207. 57.  Also Gagnon suggests that Paul’s choice of the word παρεδόθητε entails a deliberate wordplay: ‘Rather than say that the teaching was “handed over” to them (as if they were now its masters), Paul emphasizes their subordination to the teaching’ (‘Heart of Wax’, 671). The first alternative is, however, scarcely a real option. For that reason we should not think of a contrast between the two senses of the word, but rather duplicity.



Hvalvik ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’

33

have a partial parallel in Acts 20.32 where Paul – according to Luke – says to the Ephesian elders: ‘Now I commit (παρατίθεμαι) you to God and to the word of his grace’.58 In this case Paul is the subject; in Rom. 6.17b the subject behind the passive form is God. This emphasizes that obedience to this teaching is the outgrowth of God’s action and mercy.59 A major question remains: What is the meaning of τύπος διδαχῆς? Based on possible meanings of the word τύπος60 various translations have been proposed, e.g. ‘form of teaching’ (NRSV, NIV), ‘standard of teaching’ (RSV) or ‘norm’.61 More recently Robert Gagnon has, however, drawn attention to another meaning of the term τύπος, namely ‘imprint’.62 This sense is often found in Philo, with reference to the ‘imprints’ that are stamped on the soul or mind of a person. Philo compares the soul to a tablet of wax, on which imprints are set, especially as a result of teaching. When Moses instructed his people, ‘he stamped upon their minds as with a seal deep imprints of holiness’ (Spec. Leg. 1.5.30). Concerning the Jews’ zeal for their customs Philo writes: ‘Having been trained in this doctrine from their earliest years, they carry the likeness of the commandments enshrined in their souls. Then as they contemplate the clear forms and shapes they always think of them with awe’ (Leg. Gai. 31.210-11). Gagnon interprets Paul’s use of the word τύπος in Rom. 6.17b against this background and relates it to the work of the Holy Spirit, engraving the law in men’s heart (cf. Rom. 7.6; 2 Cor. 3.3; Jer. 31.33; Ezek. 36.26-27). He translates the text as follows: ‘You obeyed from the heart the imprint stamped by teaching, to which (imprint) you were handed over’. The genitive is understood as a genitive of source, which is usual when τύπος refers to literal imprints or marks (cf. Jn 20.25). Undoubtedly Gagnon has presented a very attractive interpretation of this difficult text, and it may be the best solution. While many of the texts from Philo are certainly illuminating, however, none of them give an obvious parallel to Rom. 6.17b. Furthermore, and that is my main objection, Gagnon’s interpretation implies a meaning of τύπος not found elsewhere 58.  Note that forms of παρατιθέναι and the related noun παραθήκη are used of transmission of apostolic teaching; cf. 1 Tim. 6.20; 2 Tim. 1.14; 2.2. 59.  D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 401; E. Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer (15th ed.; Meyer 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 201; Schreiner, Romans, 336. 60.  BDAG lists, among others, the following: mark (made as the result of a blow or pressure), copy, image, form, pattern, type, model, and example. 61.  Moffatt, ‘Romans 6.17-18’, 238. 62.  For the following, see Gagnon, ‘Heart of Wax’, 681-7. The translations from Philo are taken from Gagnon’s article.

34

Institutions of the Emerging Church

in Paul’s letters.63 Elsewhere Paul always uses the word τύπος in the sense ‘model’, ‘example’ or ‘pattern’ – of the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1.7) and of Paul and his co-workers (Phil. 3.17; 2 Thess. 3.9; cf. 1 Tim. 4.12; Tit. 2.7). Twice it is used of examples with a more negative sense (Rom. 5.14; 1 Cor. 10.6). Based on this use one could translate the phrase in Rom. 6.17b as ‘the model (of conduct) offered by teaching’ (genitive of source) or ‘model which consists in teaching’ (epexegetical genitive).64 Such a reading seems more likely in relation to the main verb of the clause (ὑπηκούσατε). The closest formal parallel to the expression ‘obey the τύπος διδαχῆς’ is in fact the expression ‘obey the gospel (ὑπακούειν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ)’ in Rom. 10.16 (cf. 2 Thess. 1.8).65 ‘Teaching’ and ‘gospel’ are not synonyms, but the message that Paul proclaimed was recognized by a specific content that differed from other messages. Thus Paul delimits his gospel from other ‘gospels’ and warns against people who proclaim a message that differs from his (Gal. 1.6-9; 2 Cor. 11.4). Obedience to the gospel thus implies obedience to a specific teaching about Christ, a teaching that has ethical implications, as Paul makes perfectly clear in Rom. 6. Regardless of how we translate τύπος in Rom. 6.17b, Paul is referring to a teaching to which the Romans have been obedient. The past tense of the verb (ὑπηκούσατε) makes it likely that he is referring to their conversion/ baptism.66 This implies that Paul is referring to a basic teaching, which was the foundation of their status as believers. The most astonishing thing is that Paul without any reservation seems to recognize this teaching. This seems to indicate that he in fact is thinking of it in terms of a tradition, which he and the Romans had in common. In a way he is showing confidence in those who first preached the gospel to them.67 63.  Gagnon’s answer to this objection is probably found in his stressing of the non-Pauline character of Rom. 6.17b – ‘inasmuch as the phrase stems from a traditional motif present in some philosophical writings and especially prominent in a fellow Hellenistic-Jewish author of the day’ (‘Heart of Wax’, 687). This supposition is, however, not quite compatible with the fact that Gagnon’s interpretation is firmly based on Pauline theology. 64.  Gagnon admits that this interpretation is plausible, though he asks if it is the best one (‘Heart of Wax’, 679). 65.  Cf. also 2 Cor. 9.13 where Paul speaks about ‘your obedience (ὑποταγή) to the confession of the gospel of Christ’. See the comments in Furnish, II Corinthians, 444-5. 66.  Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. S. J. Hafemann; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 95. Note also the reference to the ‘heart’ in Rom. 10.9-10; cf. Schlier, Römerbrief, 208-9. 67.  We do not know who first preached the gospel to the Romans, but some of them may have been among Paul’s co-workers and friends. See R. Hvalvik, ‘Named



Hvalvik ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’

35

This impression is supported by the second text to be commented upon, Rom. 16.17. There Paul writes: ‘I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned (παρὰ τὴν διδαχὴν ἣν ὑμεῖς ἐμάθετε); avoid them’. The exhortation in 16.17-20 comes most unexpectedly and has led some commentators to argue that it is a secondary interpolation.68 First, it is held that the ‘admonition contained in these verses breaks abruptly into the sequence of greetings’.69 This is hardly an appropriate objection. Paul’s greetings are in fact completed with v. 16. The greetings in vv. 21-23 are more like a postscript (at least partly) added by Tertius.70 In between we may have Paul’s own autograph subscriptio.71 Besides, even if the transition from v. 16 to v. 17 seems abrupt, it is – on further reflection – not very surprising. In v. 16 we have an exhortation to ‘greet one another with a holy kiss’ and a greeting from ‘all the churches of Christ’, both expressions with a strong ring of unity. It is therefore rather appropriate to follow up with a warning against disunity. Second, it is argued that the language is untypical of Paul and resembles the post-Pauline tradition, especially the one found in the Pastoral Epistles.72 It is true that the text includes a number of hapax legomena,73 but this argument is not decisive, since it is also possible to find clusters of hapax

Jewish Believers Connected with the Pauline Mission’, in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, ed. O Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 154-78, here 157. 68.  So J. C. O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (PNTC; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975), 252, 258; W.-H. Ollrog, ‘Die Abfassungsverhältnisse von Röm 16’, in Kirche: Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1980), 221-44, here 230-4; B. Byrne, Romans (SP 6; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), 456; Jewett, Romans, 986-8. 69.  Byrne, Romans, 455. 70.  Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 797. 71.  O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (14th ed.; Meyer 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 479; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 745; cf. Zeller’s comment: ‘Wenn der Apostel selbst zur Feder gegriffen hat, ist der plötzliche Wechsel im Ton ein Stück weit erklärbar’; D. Zeller, Der Brief an die Römer übersetzt und erklärt (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1985), 246. 72.  Byrne, Romans, 456; Jewett, Romans, 988. 73.  Ollrog, ‘Abfassungsverhältnisse’, 230 lists seven hapax legomena: ἐκκλίνειν, χρηστολογία, ἄκακος, ἀφικνεῖσθαι, συντρίβειν, ἐν τάχει and εὐλογία with the sense ‘flattery’. The first word is, however, also found in a Psalm quotation in Rom. 3.12 (and thus known to Paul); ἐν τάχει is also found in 1 Tim. 3.14.

36

Institutions of the Emerging Church

legomena in the undisputed letters.74 Some of the linguistic peculiarities may, moreover, be explained by Paul’s use of traditional language in reference to false teaching.75 And with regard to content there are many similarities between v. 18 and Phil. 3.18-19, between v. 19b and 1 Cor. 14.20 and between v. 20a and 1 Cor. 15.24-27. The tone of the passage as a whole has clear parallels both in 1 Cor. 16.22 and Gal. 1.6-9; 6.12-17. Third: ‘Up till now, when rejecting contrary positions, he [Paul] has offered arguments against the substance of those positions, rather than, as here, simply attacking the bad faith of those who defend them’, and the sentiments expressed are at variance with ‘the careful argument for tolerance’ in 14.1–15.13.76 The comparison with chs. 14–15 seems, however, to miss the point. In these chapters Paul is dealing with two different opinions, both of which are acceptable; both positions are held ‘in honour of the Lord’ (κυρίῳ, 14.6). In ch. 16, however, Paul is warning against those who ‘do not serve our Lord Christ’ and hold a position that is contrary to the common Christian tradition, ‘in opposition to the teaching that you have learned’. The position opposed in 16.17-20 is thus noticeably different from those referred to in chs. 14–15.77 This means that the warning has its closest parallel to Paul’s harsh statement in Gal. 1.8-9 where he is denouncing those who preach ‘a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you’. Fourth, it is not easy to find a context, either in Rome or in the situation in Corinth (from where Paul writes the letter), that would account for the warning in Rom. 16.17-20.78 While this may be correct, the value of looking for such a specific occasion is doubtful.79 It has been suggested that Paul heard rumours from Rome at the time he was finishing the dictation of the letter,80 but this seems unlikely. There is no clear indication 74.  Cf. Gal. 6.16-17 which includes the following hapax legomena and unparalleled expressions: κανόνι στοιχεῖν, ’Ισραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ, κόπους παρέχειν, στίγματα. In addition, the blessing in 6.18 has the unexampled address ἀδελφοί and the concluding ἀμήν; cf. F. Schnider and W. Stenger, Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular (NTTS 11; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 147. 75.  Lohse, Römer, 412. 76.  Byrne, Romans, 456; cf. Jewett, Romans, 987. 77.  Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 745; K. Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (THKNT 6; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), 324. 78.  Byrne, Romans, 456. 79.  Stuhlmacher (Romans, 252-3) thinks Paul has the same opponents in mind as in 3.8. Cf. also Haacker (Römer, 324) who thinks Paul is warning against those who add something to the gospel, like the intruders in Galatia. He reads the preposition παρά not in the sense ‘contrary to’ but in the sense ‘more than’, ‘above’. 80.  Wilckens, Römer, 3:143.



Hvalvik ‘Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us’

37

that the people Paul has in mind are present within the Roman churches. Paul is rather writing about an anticipated danger81 – due to his experience in the other churches (which are referred to in v. 16b). On the basis of these observations, and the fact that there is no textual basis for omitting the verses, it seems justified to maintain the authenticity of Rom. 16.17-20.82 What interests us in these verses is first and foremost v. 17 and its reference to ‘the teaching that you have learned’. Διδαχή is not a very frequent word in the undisputed letters of Paul. It is, however, clear that the word here refers to the kind of tradition that converts received when they were instructed in the Christian faith, the traditions Paul usually refers to by use of παραδιδόναι and παραλαμβάνειν.83 Again, the important thing to note is that Paul takes it for granted that the Roman Christians had been given a teaching that he himself could endorse.84 Paul presupposes a common basis for the Romans and himself. That this is the case is also seen from other texts. In 1.8 Paul speaks with appreciation of the faith of the Romans which ‘is proclaimed throughout the world’. In the almost parallel statement in 16.19 he says that ‘your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you’. There can be no doubt that Paul’s rejoicing is based on the assumption that there was a basic agreement concerning the gospel between himself and the Romans. For that reason he can also speak about the faith they have in common: ‘…that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine’ (1.12). And for the same reason Paul can say towards the end of Romans: ‘But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you (ἐπαναμιμνῄκων ὑμᾶς), because of the grace given me by God’ (15.15 RSV). He does not maintain that he has presented a new teaching to the Romans. He has only reminded them of what they have already learnt. Just as Timothy should remind the Corinthians of what Paul earlier had taught them (1 Cor. 4.17), Paul reminds the Christians in Rome of 81.  M. A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 252; cf. 197-201; cf. Cranfield, Romans, 797-8: Schreiner, Romans, 801. 82.  So, among others, Cranfield, Romans, 797-8; Wilckens, Römer, 3:140; Zeller, Römer, 246; Dunn, Romans, 2:901; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 252; Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 199; Fitzmyer, Romans, 745; J. P. Sampley, ‘Romans in a Different Light’, in Pauline Theology. Vol. III, Romans, ed. D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 109-29, here 128; Moo, Romans, 928; Schreiner, Romans, 801; Lohse, Römer, 411-12. 83.  Dunn, Romans, 2:902; Fitzmyer, Romans, 746. 84.  Cf. Michel, Römer, 480: ‘Entscheidend ist die Erkenntnis, daß Paulus sich mit seinen Lesern in der Lehre einig weiß’.

38

Institutions of the Emerging Church

what they have been taught by those who laid the foundation for the church in Rome. And he expresses no doubt about this teaching. The common ground in the common gospel is also reflected in Paul’s use of first person plural, e.g. in his teaching and exhortations related to baptism in Rom. 6.85 Several times he refers to a common understanding (‘we know’ – 6.6, 9; cf. 2.2; 3.19; 7.14; 8.22, 28), and his question ‘Do you not know that…(οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι)?’ (6.16; cf. 6.3; 7.1; 11.2) is clearly rhetorical. They know and Paul presupposes that they know, because he presupposes that he and the Roman Christians shared a common tradition. 5. Conclusion In this essay we have searched for the origin of the notion of an apostolic tradition in the Pauline letters. There is widespread agreement among scholars that the idea can be found in 2 Thessalonians.86 Some scholars use this as an argument for its Deuteropauline character but – as we have tried to demonstrate – the same idea is found several times also in the undisputed letters. When Paul refers to traditions or uses tradition terminology, he clearly has in mind some kind of basic proclamation and teaching delivered to the early communities of Jesus believers. He refers to traditions going back to Christ himself and to traditions taken over from other believers, without specifying the source. There can be no doubt, however, that he is referring to traditions he has in common with the other apostles (cf. 1 Cor. 15.11). In Galatians Paul denies that he has received the gospel from human beings (1.12), but there the focus is on the origin of the message, not its transmission. Paul’s gospel has its origin in what God had revealed to him, but this gospel was not disputed by those who were apostles before him (cf. Gal. 2.1-10). They were in basic agreement. Paul and Peter (and the rest of the twelve) were called to be apostles by the same God (Gal. 2.8). Their proclamation, teaching and instruction were based on their apostleship and thus had a particular authority. This is what Paul seems to presuppose when he in various ways refers to normative traditions. Thus it seems clear that the early Christian notion of an apostolic tradition goes back to Paul and his understanding of what it meant to be an apostle of Christ. 85.  Cf. Jürgen Roloff, Apostolat – Verkündigung – Kirche: Ursprung, Inhalt und Funktion des kirchlichen Apostelamtes nach Paulus, Lukas und den Pastoralbriefen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1965), 94-5. 86.  Cf. e.g. van Aarde, ‘The Struggle Against Heresy’, 425; Trilling, Untersu­ chungen, 115-21.

T he R eligious A uthorities in the C orpus P aulinum Erkki Koskenniemi

1. Introduction Few topics appear to be more difficult for a modern scholar than the question of ecclesiastical authority in the Pauline and post-Pauline churches, and it is indeed not an easy task to write an article on the subject, and at the same time stay within the parameters of this book. First of all, most churches have traditionally tended to find their own structure in the biblical texts. Secondly, the modern call for equality and removal of any subordination has by no means diminished the immense production of books and articles on the topic. Sometimes it feels as though an adequate treatment of the sources is possible only when the texts have lost all their religious relevance.1 But besides the religious problems, which greatly influence their interpretation, scholars also meet a series of historical and methodological problems that all diminish the possibility of answering urgent questions. The first problem is the quantity and quality of the sources. Compared to, say, John Chrysostom or Martin Luther, Paul left only fragments. Although several passages are interesting, they do not include a detailed description of ecclesiastical structure. Like other authors of the New Testament, Paul uses words such as ἐπίσκοπος or διάκονος. The question is, were they terms with a fixed content? Moreover, Paul’s letters are not descriptions of the real situation (e.g. in Corinth) but attempts to transform 1.  As long as the biblical texts are considered normative, they are subject to vivid and controversial debate. The situation changes, however, when a scholar such as T. Engberg-Pedersen, commenting on 1 Cor. 11.6, flatly writes: ‘As for interest, I have none here in showing that Paul is speaking either for or against women’s liberation or any such thing, for the simple reason that I do not find it any way binding on us whether he did one thing or the other’; see ‘1 Corinthians 11.16 and the Character of Pauline Exhortation’, JBL 11 (1991): 679–89, here 680.

40

Institutions of the Emerging Church

it: the current problems there certainly influenced what he said and what he left out. The rhetorical strategy of the apostle2 when he wrote to Corinth may have differed from his strategy when he wrote to Thessalonica, making his statements on leadership in the churches different. We also cannot know whether the ecclesiastical orders in Corinth and in Philippi were identical. This can easily lead to a very atomistic treatment of the few pages we have. However, even the pieces may be illuminating, if the puzzle is put together patiently enough. Secondly, we must distinguish between the primary and secondary sources. This means, of course, a distinction between Paul’s letters and the Deuteropaulines (the homologoumena and antilegomena), both of which are treated in this article. A further question is the role of the Acts, which should perhaps not be totally overlooked. In Luke’s presentation Paul and Barnabas acted in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch as follows: ‘Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church (χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ᾿ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους) and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust’ (Acts 14.23). The question is whether Luke projected his own view on Paul’s action without basing it on historical facts3 and also whether the evidence in the Deuteropauline writings is reliable as a historical source. Moreover, how much should we allow the fragmentary sources in the New Testament to be supplemented with later texts, such as First Clement, the letters of Ignatius or the Didache? Scholars have presented different reconstructions of how the ecclesiastical structure originated and developed, but there is no agreement on the question. The earliest development is especially enigmatic because we only have fragments illuminating it, and it is not easy to define their historical order. In this article, the homologoumena are treated in historical order (1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, Philippians, Romans), but the antilegomena, whose sequence can only be set hypothetically, are treated in canonical order (Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus). It is virtually impossible to be certain about Philippians. We do not know whether it was written in Rome, Caesarea or Ephesus; moreover, we cannot exclude the possibility of its being a composite letter. In this article, it will be treated after 1 Corinthians but before Romans, which only tentatively refers to the Ephesian origin of Philippians. 2.  A good example of how the different situations needed a different argumentation is Paul’s writing on the Mosaic Law; see L. Thurén, Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law (WUNT 124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 3.  See below, pp. 59 and 60–61.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

In addition, a third set of problems is interwoven with the character of the sources. The homologoumena in particular were not written for independent churches, which lived their own lives, but for churches which were supposed to listen carefully to their ‘father’, the founder of the church.4 This feature is obvious in all the homologoumena and antilegomena, especially in both letters to Corinth and in Galatians; Paul even uses the words τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. 13.3). The unique role of the apostle is not relevant to this article,5 nor is the development of his role in the early church.6 But the co-workers of the apostle present a puzzling problem,7 and it is not easy to explain how a church taught by Paul’s letters should live independently, without the influence of the apostle. The division of authority and power in the homologoumena differs from post-Pauline times, reflected perhaps better in the antilegomena.8 But how was the role of Jerusalem seen after the death of the apostles and the destruction of the city, and how much did the church in Jerusalem try to influence the gentile churches in Paul’s times? The question of ecclesiastical authority in the Pauline churches is thus difficult and many-sided. Moreover, there is no consensus on whether the word ‘office’ is adequate in Paul; ἀρχή or related words do not appear in the Corpus Paulinum. In earlier research, the term ‘office’ was often con­ sidered totally alien to the character of the (real) church.9 Still today, the term is defined in various ways.10 Holmberg uses Brockhaus’ definition of 4.  See B. Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 77-9. 5.  J. Frey has treated the topic in an extensive article, ‘Apostelbegriff, Apostelamt und Apostolizität: Neutestamentliche Perspektiven zur Frage nach der “Apostolizität” der Kirche’, in Das kirchliche Amt in apostolischer Nachfolge, I: Grundlagen und Grundfragen, ed. T. Schneider and G. Wenz (Freiburg: Herder; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 91-188. 6.  See Holmberg, Paul and Power, 15-56. 7.  Paul certainly had a team of co-workers, but they cannot be compared to religious authorities in local churches. When Paul mentions Timothy, for example, as visiting local churches (1 Thess. 3.1-10) or even as co-writer of his letters (1 Cor. 1.1; 2 Cor. 1.1; Phil. 1.1), this should not be confused with the local authorities, such as those in Corinth or Thessalonica. However, when Timothy (and Titus) are mentioned in the Deuteropauline letters they may represent something that should be noted in this article (see below, pp. 61–62). On Paul’s co-workers, see Holmberg, Paul and Power, 57-80. 8.  On the problems here, see L. Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, III: Kommentar zum Titusbrief (HTKNT 11/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1996), 81-2. 9.  See below, pp. 63–64. 10.  See, for example, J. Roloff, ‘Amt / Ämter / Amtsverständis IV’, TRE 2 (1978): 509-33, here 522.

42

Institutions of the Emerging Church

‘office’.11 They persuasively regard as constitutive for ‘office’ the follow­ing elements: (1) the element of permanency, (2) the element of recognition in the church (an established title of office is an indication of permanency and recognition), (3) the special position (Sonderstellung) of individuals in regard to the church (position of authority or dignity), (4) the regular commission (imposition of hands), (5) the legal element, the legal securing of the function in question. Perhaps it would be wise to avoid the modern term as much as possible and only speak about ‘religious authorities’. Although Old Testament speaks about kings and priests, a word denoting ‘office’ does not occur there. However, few scholars would deny that, for example, the High Priest had an ‘office’ in Israel. The lack of the word does not mean the lack of a phenomenon which today would be called ‘office’. In principle, it might be useful to ask whether or not the phenomenon existed in New Testament times, even though the word does not appear in the sources. The term is thus not avoided in this article, but the problems involved should not be overlooked. There are controversial answers to many questions, such as the influence of early Judaism12 and the Graeco-Roman world on the early Christian religious structures. This suggests the need in this article to present the relevant material and consider the most urgent problems. 2. The Texts a. 1 Thessalonians First Thessalonians, considered the earliest (preserved) Pauline letter, mentions, similarly to Col. 1.1, Paul’s co-workers as co-authors (1.1 Παῦλος καὶ Σιλουανὸς και Τιμόθεος). The letter also contains a passage on the leaders of the church: ‘Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you in the Lord and who admonish you (τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ προισταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν κυρίῳ καὶ νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς). Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work’ (5.12-13). The 11.  U. Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt: Die paulinische Charismenlehre auf dem Hintergrund der frühchristlichen Gemeindefunktionen (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1975), 24-5; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 109-12. Later (p. 123), Brockhaus gives a slightly different list of the required elements: ‘Dauer, Autorität, Titel, Legitimierung (Empfeh­ lungsbriefe), Sonderstellung, Bezahlung’. 12.  Older research on Early Judaism must be re-evaluated in the light of the ‘Neusnerian revolution’. In his valuable article, C. Thoma, for example, freely used later rabbinic sources to illuminate status archisynagogos; see ‘Amt / Ämter / Amtsverständis III’, TRE 2 (1978): 504-9, here 508.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

43

words show that the new church already had its leaders and that Paul speaks of them in the plural; to be sure, he does not use any of the titles known to us. The word κοπιᾶν occurs frequently in Pauline texts, and it is often used of women (Rom. 16.6; 12).13 Προ­ϊστάμενοι occurs in Rom. 12.8. Both words (κοπιᾶν and προϊστάμενοι) refer to people working in the churches; however, it is not clear whether their work was permanent and exactly defined. Paul is now writing to a church with definite Jewish roots. Scholars have assumed that churches with strong Jewish roots adopted the order with ‘elders’,14 while those with Gentile roots were led to adopt the orde­r with ‘bishops’. Paul does not use the words πρεσβύτερος or ἐπίσκοπος or any term that could be interpreted as a fixed title. However, the young church was not without leaders. The main question is whether the fragmentary sources allow a reconstruction of two different ecclesiastical orders, the one used in mainly Jewish-Christian churches and the other used in churches with a mainly gentile background. b. 1 Corinthians First Corinthians, Paul’s most practical letter, has several features mentioned above in the introduction. It is Paul, the father of the local church, who should be obeyed (1 Cor. 4.14-21), as well as Timothy, a member of his team (1 Cor. 16.10-11). Perhaps the most interesting feature of the letter for our theme is that Paul’s message seems to lead into two opposite directions. Although he is not only writing to the leaders of the local church, but to the entire church, he emphasizes the significance of the leaders.15 (1) Paul heavily criticizes the church. The dispute does not concern the personal sphere, but, as Paul eventually writes, his status as the church authority (1 Cor. 4.14-21). But this issue, as in the case of moral errors (1 Cor. 5–6), the question of εἰδωλόθυτα (1 Cor. 8.1–11.1) and the problems connected to worship (1 Cor. 11.2–14.40), as well as the different views concerning resurrection (1 Cor. 15), are all presented to the entire church. It is the members of the church and not its leaders, who 13.  On κοπιᾶν, see H. Greeven, ‘Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus: Zur Frage der ‘Ämter im Urchristentum’ (1952–53), repr. in Das kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament, ed. K. Kertelge (Wege der Forschung 439; Darmstadt: WB, 1977), 305-61; here 347-8; T. Holtz, Der erste Brief and die Thessalonicher (EKK 13; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 242. 14.  See above, p. 58. 15.  The tension between the entire church and the authorities (teachers’, διδάσκαλοι), also appears in 1 Cor. 12. On διδάσκαλοι, see below p. 56.

44

Institutions of the Emerging Church

are told, for example, to expel the sinner (1 Cor. 5.1-5), and they are all addressed when the service is discussed in 1 Cor. 14.26-40.16 The audience (i.e. every member of the church), is clearly demarcated to take care of its own holiness, not as individuals, but as ἐκκλησία, the holy community of God.17 (2) Paul strongly emphasizes, however, the responsibility of certain persons, although sometimes covertly. In 12.28 he openly refers to the following: ‘And in the church God has appointed at first (πρῶτον) apostles, second (δεύτερον) prophets, third (τρίτον) teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing’. The term ‘apostle’ is not a subject of this article, and the ‘prophets’ will be treated below, but should ‘teachers’ be interpreted as a similar group?18 At any rate, a great deal of information about religious authorities is implicit in Paul’s latent criticism. Although he stresses that every teacher is only a worker in the field – Cephas as well as Apollos and Paul himself – his words in 1 Cor. 3.10-16 contain a clear warning to the leaders of the church in Corinth: By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

‘Someone else’ (ἄλλος) certainly does not refer to ordinary members of the church. He is now writing to the people in charge in Corinth, so why does Paul not appeal directly to the leaders? And why does he only mention Stephanas (besides 1.16) in the last chapter?

16.  This is important, for example, to W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1Kor 11,17–14,40) (EKK 7/3; 4 vols.; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 444-6, who takes note of the absence of any authorities in these verses. 17.  J. Thurén, ‘Das Paulinische Verständis der Gemeindeleitung’, in Autorität des kirchlichen Amtes und der synodalen Konsensusbildung im Zeitalter der Demokratie (Veröffentlichungen der Luther-Akademie e.V. Ratzeburg 5; Erlangen: Martin-LutherVerlag, 1983), 117-27, here 118-9. 18.  On ‘teachers’, see below p. 56.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

45

You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers, to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labours at it. I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you. For they refreshed my spirit and yours also. Such men deserve recognition. (1 Cor. 16.15-18)

The words are mostly illuminated by 1 Cor. 1.11: Paul refers to ‘some from Chloe’s household’ as his source, although the men mentioned 1 Cor 16.15-18 had given him information that he certainly considered true. If that is agreed on, the status of these men was not as Paul would have wanted it. He had appointed them – the first converts (i.e. ἀπαρχή) played a special role – but the church had not been loyal to them.19 That explains why he does not mention the rival leaders. Undoubtedly Paul greatly appreciated prophecy, which is the only charisma mentioned in all three Pauline lists of charismas (Rom. 12.4-8; 1 Cor. 12.8-10; 1 Cor. 12.28-31;20 moreover, see 1 Thess. 5.20 and 1 Cor. 14.24-25). Although Paul never calls himself a ‘prophet’ he certainly considered himself one, and he refers to his own visions (2 Cor. 12.1-10) and to his prophetic activity (1 Cor. 13.2; 14.6).21 Early Christian prophecy was more rooted in Jewish apocalyptic tradition than scholars thought prior to Dautzenberg’s book.22 The crucial question for the present article is whether Paul considered prophecy a charisma given to people occasionally or whether he considered ‘prophets’ to be a group of people belonging to the leading layer of the local church. According to Witherington, for example, Paul used the term ‘prophet’ to describe ‘what a person did, not to indicate a church office’.23 On the other hand, Didache, for example, mentions

19.  According to 1 Clem. 42.4 the apostles appointed precisely these first converts, the ἀπαρχή, as ‘bishops and deacons’. The view may be oversimplified, but it justly emphasises the role of the first baptized Christians in a region (see J. Thurén, ‘Das Paulinische Verständis der Gemeinde­leitung’, 122). 20.  Th. Schneider, ‘Das Amt der frühen Kirche. Versuch einer Zusammenschau’, in Das kirchliche Amt in apostolischer Nachfolge, II: Ursprung und Wandlungenfragen, ed. D. Sattler and G. Wenz (Freiburg: Herder; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 11-38, here 20. 21.  See E.M. Boring, ‘Prophecy (Early Christian)’, ABD 5:495-502, here 498. 22.  See the summary in G. Dautzenberg, Urchristliche Prophetie. Ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Struktur im ersten Korintherbrief (BZAW 4; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975), 301-4. 23.  B. Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches (SNTS 59; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 94-5.

46

Institutions of the Emerging Church

wandering prophets, and Acts 21.9 and Rev. 2.20 tell about prophets in the New Testament. In these cases it seems appropriate to use the term ‘office’. At least their status seems to have been permanent, recognised by their churches and regarded as a ‘special position of individuals in regard to the church’; however, we know nothing about their installation or the legal elements concerned. Yet how was it in the Pauline churches?24 Once again we regret that we have so few sources. Paul gives advice on prophecy and also acknowledges that Corinthian women have prophetic gifts, yet he writes only very little about prophets. He apparently does not consider the gift temporary or occasional, but writes about people who were ‘prophets’ (1 Cor. 12.28-29). He thus seems to mean persons well known in the church who uttered valuable messages, although others were expected to evaluate, and, when necessary, correct these utterances (1 Cor. 14.29; 1 Thess. 5.19-21). Perhaps the most illuminating passage, however, is the triad in 1 Cor. 12.28: πρῶτον, δεύτερον, τρίτον. Paul seems to refer here to three groups of people, and although the list goes on, the first three named seem to have an extraordinary position. The claim that Paul had learned the triad in the church of Antiochia25 is only speculation, but by no means is the possibility excluded. It was apparently not a specific Pauline trait to allow women to have such a position. A female prophet is attacked in Rev. 2.20, and Philip’s four daughters are mentioned in a positive light in Acts 21.9. At any rate, the distance from Paul’s world to the world of Didache, for example, should not be exaggerated. The most famous and a very controversial passage is 1 Cor. 14.26-40. In my opinion, this is a genuine Pauline text containing no interpolations,26 and one in which the apostle requires Corinthian women to be silent during the service. Yet 1 Cor. 11.2-1627 seems to allow women to pray and prophesy as long as they dress as Paul demands; the contradiction seems to be obvious and interpreters have tried to solve the problem in various 24.  On prophets in Pauline churches, see Greeven, ‘Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus’, 307-25; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 96-8. 25.  A. Vögtle, Die Dynamik des Anfangs. Leben und Fragen der jungen Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 116; Schneider, ‘Das Amt der frühen Kirche’, 21. 26.  The question is treated in the Appendix. 27.  Several scholars have even considered the passage in ch. 11 to be an interpolation; see A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 806: and C. Mount, ‘1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation’, JBL 124 (2005): 313-40. Yet, there is no manuscript evidence whatsoever for this argument. One can only hope that simplifying New Testament exegesis by cutting out verses will not become a habit.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

47

ways. The strangest solution is to consider 1 Cor. 14.34-35 as a quotation, which Paul then goes on to criticize harshly.28 Others have suggested that Paul is speaking of different people29 or of different kinds of meetings.30 Still others have left the contradiction unresolved and tried to interpret the two passages synchronically.31 It seems, however, that the likeliest solution is that different kinds of speaking are referred to: whereas 1 Cor. 11 mentions (public) prayer and prophecy, 1 Cor. 14 apparently refers to something else.32 The main line of argument is certainly correct, especially because the church of Corinth originated from a Jewish synagogue, and prophecy and public prayer by women were by no means unknown in the Jewish tradition,33 although women apparently did not serve as teachers.34 28.  N. M. Flanagan and E. H. Snyder, ‘Did Paul Put Down Women in 1 Cor 14,3436?’, BTB 11 (1981): 10-12, interpret vv. 34-35 as the words of Paul’s opponents, which at first are quoted and then harshly rejected by the Apostle. Their interpretation, which is the strangest I have encountered, is based on a serious mistake in the grammar (μόνους should only refer to male members of the church). For comments on the proposed interpretation and its variations, see R. F. Collins, First Corinthians (SP 7; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 514-15. 29.  Greeven in Ch. Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (ThHNT 7/2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982), 142; J. Héring. La première épitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Paris: Neuchatel, 1949), 130. However, Paul does not distinguish between persons in ch. 11. 30.  F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICOT 7; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 341-2, claims that Paul allows women to prophecy at home, but not in the service. But did Paul concern himself with what women wore at home? 31.  W. de Boor, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertaler Studien­ bibel; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1968), 247; F. Brosché and H. Cavallin, Manssamhälltes försvarare – eller skapelsens? Studier och tankar kring frågan om kvinnan hos Paulus och Luther – i gammal och ny gnosticism (Uppsala: Pro Veritate, 1982), 64-5. 32.  W. G. Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (21st ed.; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1983), 238-9 and W. Horbury, ‘Women in the Synagogue’, in Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 3, The Early Judaism, ed. W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, and J. Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 358-402, here 369. According to Witherington (Women in the Earliest Churches, 93-4) there might have been ‘some overlap between teaching and prophecy, but a distinction is still possible’. 33.  Horbury (‘Women in the Synagogue’) plausibly refers to Judith and to the daughters of Job in the Testament of Job; see esp. pp. 368-9. 34.  The women described in Jewish inscriptions as ‘mothers of the Synagogue’ and in other terms presents a curious problem. Traditionally, these terms have been interpreted as honorific titles. However, B. J. Brooten strongly challenged this view and claimed that these women were Synagogue leaders; see Women Leaders in the

48

Institutions of the Emerging Church

1 Corinthians 11 and 14 thus deal with different things, although scholars disagree on how the speaking in 1 Cor. 14 should be further defined. Paul is hardly referring to women who were disturbing the meetings by chatting,35 but rather to those who were teaching the church. The ‘questions’ might somehow be connected to this activity.36 Scholars mostly37 reject the view that Paul refers to an agraphon in v. 37,38 apparently because it is not easy to define the content of such a logion.39 Especially the view that Paul would have been referring to an agraphon dealing with the role of women in Jesus’ circles seems to have been all too radical to most scholars, but not to Peter J. Tomson,40 who has carefully examined the Jewish background and the role of the women in the Synagogue.41 In his opinion, Paul’s views are distinctively Jewish Ancient Synagogue (Brown Judaic Studies 36; Chico: Scholars Press, 1988). On the problem, see Horbury, who supports the traditional view (‘Women in the Synagogue’, 388-401). 35.  For example, H.-D. Wendland, Die Briefe and die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 232-3. On the criticism, see Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1157. 36.  Schlatter already assumed that the ‘questions’ refer to a common method of teaching, and pointed to Jewish Synagogue practice (p. 388); see also Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 142-4. Horbury now presents the Jewish background (‘Women in the Synagogue’, 370-1). However, the practice was also very characteristic of Graeco-Roman philosophical instruction in the early imperial period: see E. Koskenniemi, ‘The Philostratean Apollonius as a Teacher’, in Theios Sophistes: Essays on Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, ed. K. Demoen and D. Praet (Mnemosyne Supplements 305; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 321-34. 37.  On different interpretations, see Dautzenberg, Urchristliche Prophetie, 291-3; Chr. Stettler, ‘The “Command of the Lord” in 1 Cor 14,37 – a Saying of Jesus?’, Biblica 86 (2006): 42-51, here 42-3. Thiselton, for example, does not deal with the question in his commentary. 38.  Stettler collects the parallels in Paul’s letters, ‘The “Command of the Lord” in 1 Cor 14,37’, 43. 39.  Stettler suggests that Paul means his entire argumentation in chs. 12–14 and refers to Jesus’ command of mutual love (‘The “Command of the Lord” in 1 Cor 14,37’, 42-51). 40.  To be sure, P. J. Tomson does not share the view of those who claim that Paul refers to different kinds of speech in chs. 11 and 14: he resolves the contradiction by assuming that they referred to different contexts or that the women are praying aloud; see Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 3/1; Maastricht: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis; Fortress, 1990), 136-7. A similar view was held by Grosheide (see above). 41.  See Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 131-9.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

49

by nature42 and Paul even refers to a tradition of Jesus, transmitted – and perhaps somehow changed? – by the church in Jerusalem. At any rate, it should be observed that Paul opens and closes the section in chs. 11–14 by writing about women43 and that he strongly emphasises the practice of ‘all churches’ (1 Cor. 11.16; 14.34). c. Philippians Paul’s brief letter to the Philippians is curiously addressed to ‘bishops’ and ‘deacons’: Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ ᾽Ιησοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις (1.1). This is the only passage in which the word ἐπίσκοπος appears in the homologoumena, and it has attracted considerable interest.44 The city of Philippi was a Roman colony, which, according to Luke, had no synagogue (Acts 16). Consequently, the church had practically no Jewish background. Was the ecclesiastical order different in Philippi than, for example, in Thessalonica? The main questions are whether ἐπίσκοπος and διάκονος were fixed terms and from where they were derived. On first impression one might assume that both were used as fixed titles in Philippians, but the traditional sense of the words may prevent a modern reader from seeking their ancient meanings. It is not certain that Paul means two different groups: the people mentioned might be ἐπίσκοποι and διάκονοι,45 which would indicate that the terms and offices were not fixed at all, but that the words should be understood in the general sense of ἐπισκέπτεσθαι and διακονεῖν. However, most scholars have assumed that the words refer to two different groups of people, both of whom had authority in Philippi. Moreover, it is interesting that both ‘bishops’ and ‘deacons’ are given in the plural, although the young church was hardly large.46 Is Paul referring 42.  It is easy for Tomson to prove that the command to women to cover their heads is distinctively Jewish; see m. Ket. 7.6; m. BQ 8.6; Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 133-4. 43.  See Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 131-2. 44.  On the passage, see G. W. Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC 43; Waco: Word, 1983), 1-13. 45.  See Hawthorne, Philippians, 7, 9-10. 46.  Several scholars have assumed that the reason why the words are in the plural is that the buildings were too small to accommodate the entire church and that each ‘bishop’ cared for only a part of the local Christian congregation; see Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKKNT 15; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 172-3. This is possible, but it should be noted that we do not know how large the church was in Philippi: certainly a Roman house had room for a significant number of people.

50

Institutions of the Emerging Church

here to the leaders of the church, that is, to ‘bishops’ in a later ecclesiastical sense? A Pauline local church included a remarkable number of religious authorities. Or did he mean something else, something that has been obscured by the traditional meaning of the words?47 Traditionally, many scholars have tried to explain ἐπισκοπος in a GraecoRoman context, but the Jewish background has also been considered. Many scholars have claimed that the order of ἐπίσκοπος was derived from gentile models and meant an alternative to ‘elders’, a structure adopted from the Jewish heritage.48 ᾽Επίσκοπος, a person who has ἐπισκοπή over something, is a common enough Greek word and has provoked different theories.49 The word is used for both gods (Homer, Iliad 22.254-5) and men (Homer, Odyssey 8.163) in the Greek vernacular; often it is clearly not a fixed title. However, the term is also frequently used as a title for state officials, as in Athens (Aristophanes, Birds 1022ff.), Erythrae (IG 1.10-11, 465 BCE) or in Egypt (P. Petr. 3.36a.17; ἐπίσκοπος δούλων, P.Freiburg 8.11). We also know of ἐπίσκοποι in the religious sphere (IG 12.1.731). All of these considerations have led scholars to suggest that the background of the title lies in the gentile world,50 and to minimize the spiritual work of the ἐπίσκοποι and attribute to them mostly financial tasks. However, it is hardly possible to consider the word a fixed, Greek title and to define the ‘original’ task of the ‘bishops’ as that of economic supervisors.51 47.  Roloff rejects unequivocally the view that the ‘bishops’ formed a collegium, but his only argument is that the word does not have any such connotation (Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 173). 48.  See below, pp. 58–59. 49.  See Beyer, ‘ἐπισκέπτομαι, ἐπισκοπέω, ἐπισκοπή, ἐπίσκοπος’, 595-619; M. Dibelius, ‘ “Bischöfe” und “Diakonen” in Philippi’ (1937), repr. in Kertelge, ed., Das kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament, 413-14; H. W. Beyer and H. Karpp, ‘Bischoff’, RAC 2 (1954): 394-407; Hawthorne, Philippians, 8-9; G. Schöllgen, ‘Bischof. I. Neues Testament’, RGG4 1 (1998): 1614-15; J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Structured Ministry of the Church in the Pastoral Epistles’, CBQ 66 (2004): 582-96, here 587-9. 50.  See K. H. Schelkle, ‘Dienste und Diener in der neutestamentlichen Zeit’ (1969), repr. in Kertelge, ed., Das kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament, 220-36, here 228; Schneider, ‘Das Amt der frühen Kirche’, 27. 51.  Dibelius considered ἐπίσκοποι ‘Geschäftsführer’ (‘ “Bischöfe” und “Diakonen” in Philippi’, 413-7; see also ‘Die Stellung des Bischofs in den Pastoralbriefen’ (1931)’, repr. in Kertelge, ed., Das kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament, 470-4, and E. Käsemann, ‘Kassenverwalter’, ‘Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament’ (1960), repr. in Kertelge, ed., Das kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament, 173-204; see also J. Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (NTD 9/1-77; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 23, although he emphasises the Jewish background. According to Roloff, the ἐπίσκοποι did not engage in teaching; this was the work of ‘teachers’



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

51

In the Jewish world the word ἐπίσκοπος is seldom if ever used as a fixed title: the LXX uses it once of God (Wis. 1.6) and sometimes of men, but never as a fixed title.52 However, scholars eagerly compared the Qumran mĕbaqqer with the early occurrences of ἐπίσκοπος,53 and although the text in CD is very interesting indeed,54 effectively it says merely that the people in the Community had their authorities. A closer link between Qumran and the Pauline usage of words does not seem warranted, although the concept may have influenced early Christianity. All in all, the very general sense of the word ἐπίσκοπος made it easy for the first Christians to use: neither a Jewish nor a Greek origin can be proven. The men had ἐπισκοπή over something: it is not wise to define their work too narrowly.55 The word διάκονος also brings up an interesting question. Is it an early appearance of a Christian ‘office’? And should διάκονος be interpreted with the help of the later, Christian vocabulary or rather with the Greek vocabulary common at the time? The words διάκονος (also used in the feminine gender, Rom. 16.1)56 and διακονία are open to different interpretations.57 In vernacular Greek, διακονεῖν may have a negative connotation (Plato, Gorg. 491e), but also a positive one, especially in connection with and ‘prophets’ (Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 172). I doubt that it is wise to base a historical reconstruction on terms that were not yet fixed (see also Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, 88-9). 52.  See H. W. Beyer, ‘ἐπισκέπτομαι, ἐπισκοπέω, ἐπισκοπή, ἐπίσκοπος’, TWNT 2 (1935): 595-617, esp. 610-11. 53.  See, for example, Hawthorne, Philippians, 8-9. 54.  ‘And this is the rule of the Inspector of the camp. He shall instruct the Many in the deeds of God, and shall teach them his mighty marvels, and recount to them the eternal events with their explanations. He shall have pity on them like a father on his sons, and will heal all the afflicted among them, like a shepherd his flock. He will undo all the chains which bind them, so that there will be neither harassed nor oppressed in his congregation. And everyone who joins his congregation, he should examine, concerning his actions, his intelligence, his strength, his courage and his wealth; and they shall inscribe him in his place according to his inheritance in the lot of light. And no-one of the members of the camp should have authority to introduce anyone in the congregation without the permission of the Inspector of the camp’ (CD 13.7-13; cf. also 14.8-9, 13). 55.  On the attempts to define the ἐπίσκοποι as financial officers, see above p. 50. 56.  On Phoebe, see p. 53. 57.  On διάκονοι, see H. W. Beyer, ‘διακονέω, διακονία, διάκονος’, TWNT 2 (1935): 81-93; C. Osiek, ‘Diakon / Diakonisse / Diakonat. I Neues Testament’, RGG4 2 (1999): 783; Fitzmyer, ‘The Structured Ministry’, 591-2 and Holmberg, Paul and Power, 100-102.

52

Institutions of the Emerging Church

service to the state (Demosthenes, 50.2): it is not the case that the Greeks despised serving while the Hebrews enjoyed it.58 LXX never uses the word διακονεῖν, but rather δουλεύειν, which does not necessarily have a pejorative meaning. The word διάκονος is rarely used as a term denoting an official in the Greek vernacular, and never in early Jewish texts written in Greek, although there the word often has its usual meaning ‘servant’.59 Neither the Greek nor the Jewish usage of the words thus denote a specific religious usage. In the New Testament, the words διάκονος / διακονεῖν / διακονία are used (a) in a general sense, i.e. referring to serving without any specific early Christian sense (Lk. 10.40), (b) to denote the activity of Jesus, which serves as an example for every Christian (Mr 10.41-5) and (c) to refer to persons working in a local church.60 This usage seems to attest to the development of the terms in the very early Christian world, and the Corpus Paulinum is, of course, a part of this history. The terms are not direct loans from the Jewish or Greek worlds, and they could still be used in different senses, but quite early they were used to mean an official in the church. The Lukan explanation, i.e. that διάκονος grew out of the service at mealtimes and the charitable activities of the church, is plausible (Acts 6.1-6). Paul uses the words as described above, that is, in a general sense (Rom. 13.4), and to refer to Jesus (Rom. 15.8), but also to refer to himself (Rom. 11.13), to his co-workers (1 Cor. 3.5) and to people working in a local church.61 From these texts it should be clear that διακονία, especially in Rom. 12.7, 1 Cor. 12.5 and 1 Cor. 16.15, refers to this designation of people. The only probable uses of the word διάκονος as a title occur in Rom. 16.1-2 and Phil. 1.1. The single appearance of ἐπίσκοπος and the few appearances of διάκονος in the homologoumena do not permit precise definitions of the type of work involved. The people referred to worked as leaders in the church in Philippi, and certainly elsewhere, although what more is meant we do not precisely know.62 58.  Beyer tries rather too forcefully to distinguish between the Greek and the Hebrew concepts in his classical article (‘διακονέω, διακονία, διάκονος’, 81-2); as does, for example, Hawthorne, Philippians, 9. Few people have been keen to be servants, either in the Greek or the Hebrew world. 59.  See Beyer, ‘διακονέω, διακονία, διάκονος’, 92; E. Schweizer, ‘Das Amt. Zum Amtsbegriff im Neuen Testament’ (1959), repr. in Kertelge, ed., Das kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament, 205-19, here 208-11. 60.  Osiek, ‘Diakon / Diakonisse / Diakonat. I Neues Testament’, 783. 61.  On the usage of the words in the antilegomena, see below, p. 60. 62.  Roloff is bold enough to claim that the first occurrence of the word also documents a new phase in the Pauline churches and considers ἐπίσκοπος ‘eine feste



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

53

d. Romans The human body is often used to illustrate the essence of the church, as it is in Rom. 12.3-8. In 12.6-8 Paul writes: We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving, let him serve (εἴτε διακονίαν, ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ); if it is teaching, let him teach (ὁ διδάσκων ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ); if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership (προιστάμενος), let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

Romans 12.5, which describes the ‘one body in Christ’ undoubtedly illuminates Paul’s view of a local church and its leadership and it is regrettable that it is far too brief to satisfy our curiosity. Other passages are needed to aid our interpretation. However, there seems to be a kind of dialogue between the Christian community and its leadership (διακονία / προιστάμενοι / διδασκαλία). A contraposition between the members of the church and its leadership seems to have been alien to Paul, although not to some scholars. A very interesting passage informs us about Phoebe, one of Paul’s co-workers (Rom. 16.1-2): I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea (Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν οὖσαν καὶ διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς). I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me (καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ).

Sadly, a satisfactory interpretation of these important words is hindered by several difficult problems, not least the meagre texts, which do not seem to answer all the questions. However, regardless of which letter ch. 16 is attributed to,63 the διάκονος and προστάτις are used in reference Amtsbezeichnung’ (‘Amt / Ämter / Amtsverständis IV’, 522). The fragmentary sources hardly allow the drawing of such a historical conclusion, especially because the church in Philippi, unlike the one in Thessalonica, for example, had practically no Jewish background. 63.  Phoebe’s role in Paul’s plans when he wrote from Corinth to Rome has been the subject of considerable speculation; see R. Jewett, ‘Spanish Mission’, in The Social World of Formative Christianity, ed. J. Neusner (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 142-61. However, some scholars traditionally doubt the integrity of Romans and attribute ch. 16 to a letter originally written to Ephesus. If this attribution is rejected, all reconstructions of Phoebe’s activity in Paul’s plans for the church in Rome are mere speculation. However, other scholars doubt whether Rom. 16 or parts of it should

54

Institutions of the Emerging Church

to Phoebe. We might begin by asking whether προστάτις, as Caroline F. Whelan has suggested, should be interpreted to mean that Phoebe was a free, wealthy woman and patroness of Paul.64 In Acts 16 Lydia provides a good example to show that such a position was possible for women in Graeco-Roman society. It would be especially interesting were Phoebe indeed to be shown to be a powerful woman, because she is also called a διάκονος. The mention of Phoebe in Rom. 16.1-2 is the earliest evidence that women too could serve as ‘deacons’;65 apparently γυναῖκας in 1 Tim. 3.11 is further evidence.66 The two passages Rom. 16.1-2 and Phil. 1.1, of which the former, mentioning Phoebe, is the clearer one, seem to prove that the word διάκονος already then in Paul’s mind could be a fixed term. Paul not only uses this term, but he also uses the words οὖσαν...διάκονον, which clearly emphasize the permanency of Phoebe’s status. People like Gaius ὁ ξένος μου καὶ ὅλης τῆς ἐκκλησίας (Rom. 16.23) should be mentioned here. Gaius, perhaps Gaius Titius Iustus by his tria nomina,67 was a wealthy Roman who opened his house to the church in considered an independent letter: see, for example, U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (EKK 6/3; Zurich: Benziger, 1982); Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 275-82. 64.  Whelan, ‘Amica Pauli: the Role of Phoebe in the Early Church’, JSNT 49 (1993): 67-85, analyses the word προστάτις and presents material to demonstrate the important roles women could play in the Empire of Paul’s times (p. 73-7; see also Horbury, ‘Women in the Synagogue’, 359-60). This role has been largely neglected by previous scholars. It must be stated, however, that J. D. G. Dunn is all too bold in his speculations about Phoebe (‘She had business in Rome, quite probably a lawsuit’; see Romans 9–16 [WBC 38B; Dallas: Word, 2002], 889). 65.  The two ministrae, female slaves tortured by Pliny (Ep. 10.96), apparently had held a similar office (quo magis necessarium credidi ex duobus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid esset veri, et per tormenta quaerere). On the correspondence, see K. Thraede, ‘Noch einmal: Plinius d. J. und die Christen’, ZNW 95 (2004): 102-28. On the ministrae, see ibid., 127-8. On Phoebe as a deacon, see Wilckens, Der Brief and die Römer, 131-2. 66.  Surprisingly, the word γυναῖκας appears between the word διάκονος in vv. 8 and 12. If it does not refer to the wives of the ‘deacons’, then it denotes female ‘deacons’. See Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 164-5; Fitzmyer, ‘The Structured Ministry’, 592. 67.  If the man mentioned in Acts 18.7 (εἰς οἰκίαν τινὸς ὀνόματι Τιτίου Ἰούστου σεβομένου τὸν θεόν) was, as seems to be inescapable, a Roman citizen, then he also had a praenomen, which Luke does not mention. Paul uses the praenomen of the host of the church, which was usual in familiar circles. Apparently, Paul himself had baptised the man (cf. 1 Cor. 1.14 and Wilckens, Der Brief and die Römer, 146). If Luke is reliable and referring to the same man, then his full name was Gaius Titius Iustus.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

55

Corinth. The letter to Philemon (Φιλήμονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν καὶ ᾽Απφίᾳ τῇ ἀδελφῇ καὶ ᾽Αρχίππῳ τῷ συστρατιώτῃ ἡμῶν καὶ τῇ κατ’ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ, Phlm. 1.1-2) illuminates the role of those like Gaius, people, who could be either male or female, like Nympha in Col. 4.15 (Νύμφαν καὶ τὴν κατ’ οἶκον αὐτῆς ἐκκλησίαν). It is curious that in 1. Cor. 16 Gaius is not mentioned among the church leaders nor is he mentioned at all in either of the two letters, except briefly in 1 Cor. 1.14. However, those who permitted the entire church to enjoy their hospitality certainly belonged to the upper strata of local church leadership.68 e. Ephesians Ephesians, considered Deuteropauline by almost all critical scholars, markedly emphasizes the role of the Christian community in God’s plan. Ephesians can justly be characterised as a letter to the Church. In this context, vv. 4.11-13 are especially interesting:69 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους), to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

It is clear that the ecclesiastical structure, including the church authorities, is now strongly emphasised. For this reason the words used are of special interest: ‘apostles’ certainly refers to a fixed group, which is not thought to have been replaced by successors: the author seems to look backwards to them. But the other words – ‘prophets’, ‘evangelists’, ‘pastors’ and teachers – deserve closer attention. Does the writer consider the ‘prophets’ – the Old Testament prophets are hardly meant – to have an ‘office’ in the church? In general, the antilegomena in general contain very little material on prophecy70 and prophets, and this passage is the only important one outside the Pastorals. Ephesians presents ‘prophets’ as a group mentioned along with apostles, evangelists, 68.  On people who were hosts to entire churches, see Holmberg, Paul and Power, 103-6. 69.  On the passage, see R. Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser (EKK 10; Zurich: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 182-7; Frey, ‘Apostelbegriff, Apostelamt und Apostolizität’, 166-70. 70.  On the term ‘prophet’ in the Homologoumena, see below, pp. 45–46.

56

Institutions of the Emerging Church

pastors and teachers, but apparently the ‘prophets’ as well as the apostles already belong to the past.71 The daily care of the church is the responsibility of the church leaders, now called οἱ ποιμένες καὶ διδάσκαλοι. The use of the definite article (τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους) may mean that ‘pastors’ and ‘teachers’ are identified here.72 It is worth observing that neither ποιμήν nor εὐαγγελιστής appear in the homologoumena.73 ‘Paul’ in Ephesians looks backwards to the ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’, yet considers ‘pastors’ and ‘teachers’ to be active in his time.74 The word διδάσκαλος and the verb διδάσκω are, of course, so common that it is useless to seek links to specific Greek or Jewish usage. The only important question is whether these words in the Corpus Paulinum refer to a specific group or groups of people who are leaders of a local church.75 We have only a few passages that could shed light on this question. The ‘teachers’ are part of the triad in 1 Cor. 12.28. The apostles formed a group sui generis, while the ‘prophets’ edified the church by their prophecies, and the ‘teachers’ obviously showed the way through non-charismatic instruction. The list in Eph. 4.11 gives a very similar impression. A special group of people is meant. This claim does not mean that διδάσκαλος was also a fixed title; at least the Pastorals give a different impression. 1 Timothy 5.17 denotes that some but not all ‘elders’ were κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. There is no need to distinguish between ‘teachers’ and ‘bishops’, for example. That a ‘bishop’ would be able to teach (διδακτικός, 1 Tim. 3.2) and that Timothy is told to seek people οἵτινες ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι (2 Tim. 2.2), only proves that regular instruction gained importance in young churches. The term εὐαγγελιστής occurs only once outside Christian literature (IG 12,1,675,6), which means that neither the Greek nor the Jewish background help to illuminate the word.76 In the New Testament εὐαγγελιστής

71.  Boring, ‘Prophecy (Early Christian)’, 499. 72.  The omission of the article before διδασκάλους leaves both options open, i.e. that the groups are identfied or that the writer means two separate groups; see F. Blass, A. Debrunner and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (14th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 276-7. 73.  This is the only passage, in which ποιμήν is used of persons other than Jesus in the New Testament (see, however, ποιμαίνειν in Jn 21.16; 1 Pet. 5.1-5; Acts 20.29-30). 74.  See Schneider, ‘Das Amt der frühen Kirche’, 23-4. 75.  On prophets in Pauline churches, see Greeven, ‘Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus’, 325-44; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 98-9. 76.  On εὐαγγελιστής, see G. Friedrich, ‘εὐαγγελιζομαι, εὐαγγέλιον κτλ.’, TWNT 2 (1935): 705-35, here 734-5.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

57

only occurs in Eph. 4.11, Acts 21.8 and 2 Tim. 4.5, where Timothy is called εὐαγγελιστής (ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ, τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον). In the last passage, Timothy appears to be a co-worker of the apostle, a member of his missionary team. A similar activity is attributed to Philippus, one of the seven ‘deacons’ in the Acts. The ‘evangelists’ were thus early Christian missionaries. However, there is no reason to assume that the group was fixed: εὐαγγελιστής is the one who proclaims εὐαγγέλιον, especially in missionary work. We thus encounter a few appearances of the term, but perhaps Schnackenburg characterised it correctly: ‘keine Apostel, wohl aber Evangeliumsverkünder in Übereinstimmung mit den Aposteln’.77 f. 1 Timothy Paul’s First Letter to Timothy contains several passages that are crucial to the present article. Most of them are included in 2.1–3.16, a passage that is usually called a church order.78 Perhaps the most famous verses, 2.8-15, play only a small role here.79 But other texts are very valuable for examining the post-Pauline period. Timothy himself is called ‘my true son in the faith’ (Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει, 1.1), with a reference to prophecies about him (1.18). What ‘Paul’ tells him to do (4.11-16) obviously reveals what a church leader should do: all in all, Timothy and Titus represent an important link between Paul and the religious authorities, that is, bishops and elders.80 The most important passages deal with ‘bishops’, ‘deacons’ and ‘elders’: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer (εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται) he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach (δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι), the husband of but one wife (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα), temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach (διδακτικόν), not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgement as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. (3.1b-7)

77.  Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser, 184. 78.  See Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 18-29. 79.  On the secondary literature connected to this passage, see Fitzmyer, ‘The Structured Ministry’, 596. 80.  See Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, 75-8.

58

Institutions of the Emerging Church Deacons (διακόνους), likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truth of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested, and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. (3.8-10) The elders (πρεσβύτεροι) who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain’, and ‘The worker deserves his wages’. Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning. I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. (5.17-22)

The letter thus contains rich material about religious authorities. Moreover, several terms are here used in a new sense. It is perhaps wise to start from the last passage regarding the ‘elders’ and to examine their relationship to the other groups mentioned. It is not obvious whether the word πρεσβύτερος in 5.1-2 refers to a religious authority or simply to an old man, but at any rate, the passage in 5.17-22 refers to religious authorities. Apparently, a local church is assumed to have several πρεσβύτεροι, of which some but not all practiced preaching and teaching: at least those who did this for a living. But can they be distinguished from ‘bishops’? We now find ‘bishops’, ‘deacons’ and ‘elders’ in the same letter. The term πρεσβύτερος had a long and multifaceted history before it was used in the Corpus Paulinum.81 The ancient world generally appreciated age and experience, meaning that in a fundamental sense ‘elder’ often carries a sense of leadership, as the words γερουσία or senatus also reveal. In the Old Testament, zĕqēnîm often play an important role, either formally or informally. ziqnê Yiśrāʾēl is rendered either γερουσία, as in Exod. 3.16; 3.18 and 4.30, or οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ (Num. 11.30) in the LXX. The word πρεσβύτεροι may reveal a link to the Jewish administration in the Hellenistic age.82 The word πρεσβύτερος was used as a title in ancient Sparta83 as well as in gentile Egypt, and even in early Judaism The Synoptic tradition frequently speaks of high priests and πρεσβύτεροι 81.  On the word, see G. Bornkamm, ‘πρέσβυς, πρεσβύτερος, συμπρεσβύτερος, πρεσβυτέριον’, TWNT 6 (1959): 651-83. 82.  Bornkamm, πρέσβυς, πρεσβύτερος, συμπρεσβύτερος, πρεσβυτέριον’, 660. 83.  πρεσβύτερος τῶν ἐφόρων, for example, was the president of the ephors (IG 5,1).



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

59

(τοῦ λαοῦ), as in Mk 8.31; Mt. 21.23 and Lk. 9.22. The Jewish people in the Diaspora were led by the πρεσβύτεροι of the local synagogue. Denoting Christian ‘elders’, πρεσβύτερος appears in the New Testament outside the Corpus Paulinum (cf. Jas 5.14; 1 Pet. 5).84 Luke uses it in connection with the leaders in Jerusalem (Acts 11.30; 15.2; 21.18) who formed a presbyterium. In Luke’s terms, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church (Acts 14.23).85 As we have seen, Paul never uses the word in the homologoumena. It seems that here we encounter a traditional Jewish structure in Pauline terrain; moreover, it is interesting that both Titus and Acts 20 seem to merge the terms πρεσβύτερος and ἐπίσκοπος. Both Luke (Acts 14.23) and the Deuteropaulines assume that πρεσβύτεροι were appointed in the local churches. Do we have reason to claim that the structure was alien to the historical Paul, as scholars widely assume?86 It is true that we do not have the word πρεσβύτερος in the homologoumena, although once (!) we find the word ἐπίσκοπος, but we certainly encounter people who were in charge of a local church. The Jewish background to ecclesiastical life in Corinth has been emphasised by Horbury, and it is hard to believe that the term analogous to ziqnê Yiśrāʾēl would have been alien to Paul,87 who referred to the practice of ‘all churches’ in 1 Cor. 11 and 14. In the passages on ἐπίσκοπος and διάκονος the writer seems to offer a Pfarrspiegel to his readers: the contacts to Titus attest that both stem from a common tradition.88 The text seems to presume that ‘bishops’ and ‘deacons’ existed in all churches. Unfortunately, this characterisation tells us very little about the work of such people. However, that a ‘bishop’ should be διδακτικός certainly refers to his spiritual activity, sometimes minimized by scholars.89 ᾽Επίσκοποι are mentioned only in Phil. 1.1 in the homologoumena and then in 1 Tim. 3 and Tit. 1.7 in the Pauline letters; i.e. very early in a church with very little Jewish background and then a little later, in already traditional Pauline terrain (cf. also Acts 20.28). As 84.  On ‘elders’ in early Christianity, see Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, 84-6; Schneider, ‘Das Amt der frühen Kirche’, 24-5. 85.  Luke’s words have often been questioned. According to Roloff, for example, the passage is ‘ganz sicher ungeschichtlich’ (‘Amt / Ämter / Amtsverständis IV’, 521). 86.  See above, p. 65. 87.  According to Greeven, the term was indeed alien to Paul: the concept of ‘Elders’ in Judaism meant that people looked backwards, to holy history; Paul, by contrast, looked forwards (Greeven, ‘Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus’, 307-25). But did Paul really analyse the terms so accurately? 88.  See Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 150-1. 89.  See above, p. 50.

60

Institutions of the Emerging Church

shown above, in Philippians Paul seems to use a very common word – not a fixed title borrowed from Greek or Jewish tradition – to refer to something that he considered necessary, namely, that a young church must have leaders. It is interesting indeed that the small church in Philippi had several ἐπίσκοποι; this fact has led scholars to conclude that no one led the Christian church alone. However, although this conclusion seems to be certain, it should be noted that it is not clear whether 1 Timothy and Titus already speak of one ‘bishop’ or assume that there could be several ‘bishops’ in a church. The word διάκονος is now clearly used as a fixed term,90 although it is also clearly used in a wider, non-specific sense in the antilegomena (e.g. 1 Tim. 4.16). However, the only clue to what a διάκονος – male or female – did in the church is the original sense of the word, which harks back to Luke’s explanation. The term denotes subordination, but it is unclear whether the ‘servant’ / ‘deacon’ was subordinate to the bishop, as some schol­­ars assume,91 or to the church. Principally, it is tempting to believe that an ἐπίσκοπος took care of ἐπισκοπή, supervision, and a διάκονος of διακονία. Brockhaus considered ‘the regular commission (imposition of hands)’ as one criterion for ‘office’. However, the only passages in which ἐπίθεσις τῶν χειρῶν is mentioned in the Corpus Paulinum are 1 Tim. 4.14 and 2 Tim. 1.6. The first passage reads as follows: ‘Do not neglect your gift (τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος), which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you (διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου)’. The elements of the early Christian ‘ordination’ are present here. A person is appointed to a position, clearly as a religious authority in the church. The sense is borrowed from early Judaism;92 although the Jewish parallels might be late, the model was borrowed earlier from Num. 27 and Deut. 34.9. The closest parallels 90.  In Colossians, the words διάκονος / διακονία are frequently used. Epaphras is διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Col. 1.7), Tychicus πιστὸς διάκονος (Col. 4.7) and Archippus is told to complete his work (Βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς) (Col. 4.17). However, ‘Paul’ also uses the word about himself (οὗ ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος, Col. 1.23; ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος, Col. 1.25). The brief letter thus uses the words noticeably often when compared with other writings in the Corpus Paulinum. 91.  Beyer, ‘διακονέω, διακονία, διάκονος’, 90. 92.  According to Käsemann (‘Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament’, 196-7), the Jewish concept of ordination replaces the Pauline concept of charisma and Spirit. This argument involves several assumptions: first, that the concepts of σῶμα and leadership are mutually exclusive, and secondly, that leaders were not ordained in the Jewish manner in the Pauline churches and that Acts 14.23 is an unhistorical



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

61

are, of course, the Lukan passages in Acts 13.1-3 and 14.23. Interestingly, the activity of a πρεσβυτέριον – this is the only appearance of the word in the Pauline epistles93 – is now connected with a prophetic word (ἐπίθεσις τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου (1 Tim. 4.14; see also 1 Tim. 1.18). Although the meagre sources do not warrant the view that the prophecy ‘is regarded with more than a bit of suspicion’94 the antilegomena tell nothing about ‘prophets’ as a group belonging to the leadership of a local church. The ‘widows’ (χῆραι)95 referred to in vv. 5, 3-16 certainly formed a fixed group of persons; they are even listed. It is clear that a ‘widow’ received help from the church, but did widows also take part in the church’s charitable activities? It seems useless to deny them any role (see 5.13), although we cannot define how their work differed from that of a ‘deacon’, such as Phoebe (Rom. 16.1-2). The spiritual character of the requirements recalls old Hannah in Lk. 2. If a person is chosen and named by a church and her activity is regulated as in the present passage, there seems no reason to avoid the term ‘office’ here. The letter contains a great deal of material about religious authorities. To the writer, the church is οἶκος θεοῦ (1 Tim. 3.15) and its leaders consequently οἰκονόμοι θεοῦ, as Tit. 1.7 says. The consolidation of the ecclesiastical order is obvious.96 g. 2 Timothy The letter, written in a very personal tone, does not add very much to what has been stated above. What Timothy does is derived from his charisma and the fact that ‘Paul’ laid hands on him (ἀναμιμνῄσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου, 1.6). Timothy is told to transmit everything he has heard from ‘Paul’ to his chosen people (καὶ ἃ ἤκουσας παρ’ ἐμοῦ διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων, ταῦτα παράθου πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις, οἵτινες ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι, 2.2). It is difficult to know whether Timothy is meant to have special status as co-worker and successor to Paul (cf. 1.2: Τιμοθέῳ ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ), or whether he is presented simply as a model of religious authority, projection of history (a view strongly defended by Käsemann, ‘Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament’, 199-201). On ordination, see E. Ferguson. ‘Ordain, Ordination’, ABD 5:37-40. 93.  Observed by Fitzmyer, who refers to further articles on πρεσβυτέριον (‘The Structured Ministry’, 594). 94.  Boring, ‘Prophecy (Early Christian)’, 499. 95.  On the χῆραι, see H. Schlier, ‘Die Ordnung der Kirche nach den Pastoralen’ (1948), repr. in Kertelge, ed., Das kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament, 475-500, here 498; Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, 96-8; Fitzmyer, ‘The Structured Ministry’, 592-3. 96.  See Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, 78-83.

62

Institutions of the Emerging Church

a ‘bishop’, for example, which was common in post-Pauline times. However, it seems clear that the addressee of the letter represented an important link between Paul and the religious authorities. Two general remarks on the Pastorals are needed here. First of all, as in 1 Timothy, the role of religious instruction is emphasized.97 But secondly, the concept of ‘the body of Christ’ is not invoked, although it appears in Colossians and Ephesians.98 The concept of ‘the body’ seems to have been replaced by the idea that the church must be properly managed and governed. h. Titus ‘Paul’ writes to Titus, as he did to Timothy, in a very personal tone (Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ, 1.4). He unambiguously orders the addressee to ‘appoint elders in every town, as I directed you’ (καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσ­ βυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην, 1.5). Titus is told to do exactly what Paul and Barnabas did according to Acts 14.23 (χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ’ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους), although the wording varies. The writer continues: An elder (cf. πρεσβυτέρους in v. 5) must be blameless, the husband of but one wife (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ), a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer (ἐπίσκοπος) is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless – not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (1.6-9)

The writer now seems to use the words πρεσβύτερος and ἐπίσκοπος interchangeably99 and describes an ideal leader of the church in a way that does not appear in the genuine Pauline letters.100

97.  This is one reason why Schlier connects Paul to the ‘bishops’. According to him, Paul’s position is based on his message, his role as the authoritative teacher. The same role is transferred to his co-workers first and then to local ‘bishops’ appointed by them. Schlier speaks openly of ‘Sukzession’ (‘Die Ordnung der Kirche nach den Pastoralen’, 495-6). 98.  Fitzmyer, ‘The Structured Ministry’, 583-4. 99.  See above, p. 59. 100.  The words πρεσβύτης and πρεσβυτἰδες in Tit. 2.2-3 apparently refer to old men and women, not to ‘elders’.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

63

3. Prospects for a Historical Reconstruction? Old churches have traditionally derived their ecclesiastical offices from the historical Jesus (institutum est). In so far as historical criticism has broken the link between the historical Jesus and the early Church, the view has been replaced with reconstructions that assume a historical development. In part these reconstructions happen to concord with the view of other confessions, in which ecclesiastical offices have traditionally played a minor role, if any. According to the general view charismatic freedom ruled in churches in the earliest stage, and different activities preceded any ecclesiastical ‘offices’. With this freedom, every member of the Christian community, male or female, could do what was needed for the church. Only later – in the age of the Deuteropauline epistles – was freedom restricted and the ecclesiastical ‘offices’ gained in importance. In this view, in the beginning were the tasks; later attention was paid to certain persons, and finally attention was given to the ‘offices’. It should not be overlooked that this pattern, which appeared in the nineteenth century did not originate in a vacuum. Brockhaus presented the ‘old consensus’ before Harnack, and although it easily led to caricature, the observation is certainly useful: an early church was considered a local, free and autonomous community of free people, governed by democratic ideals.101 The target of this enlightened, Protestant bias was, of course, the Catholic Church, the ‘Frühkatholizismus’. Sohm’s very influential 1892 book, Kirchenrecht I, gave a marked new impetus to scholarship and strongly emphasized the contrast between charisma and order.102 This point of view still endures in different variations in exegesis. Apparently, the fragmentary sources have been quietly interpreted from the viewpoint of modern society, which seeks freedom and democracy and avoids the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. That every member could do what the Spirit told him to do without the interference of annoying ‘officials’ fits the picture quite well.103 However, the difference between the modern

101.  Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt, 7-20. 102.  R. Sohm, Kirchenrecht I: Die geschichtlichen Grundlagen (Munich: Duncker und Humblot, 1892). For a discussion, see Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt, 15-20. 103.  Numerous modern scholars have considered any trace of any ‘office’ alien to the essence of the church, although they approach this from different angles. Käsemann draws a continuum from charismatic freedom and σῶμα to post-Pauline times, in which the danger of heresies forced the churches to seek defence from followers of the apostles and hierarchy (‘Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament’,

64

Institutions of the Emerging Church

Western European scholars and members of the Pauline churches might well be considerable. When returning to the Pauline texts and to the homologoumena, the best starting point might be the church in Corinth. It is highly probable that the Corinthians copied quite a lot of their service and also the religious structure from the synagogue of Corinth, where the church originated and from where it acquired its first members. Although Paul clearly addresses his letters to the entire church, there is no reason to believe that the church lacked leaders. Paul had appointed them himself, but he was not satisfied that the church had not listened to them. However, whoever was in charge in Corinth had the responsibility of the church at the Last Judgement (1 Cor. 3.10-16). Although the concept of ‘the body of Christ’ should certainly not be overlooked and the fragmentary sources do not allow an exact reconstruction of the earliest ‘offices’, many passages in the homologoumena attest to the leadership of certain persons (1 Thess. 5.12-13: Phil. 1.1; 1 Cor. 16.15-18). It is highly probable that, as in the Jewish heritage, some people were in charge of the service in Corinth from the very beginning. In the beginning were people, not tasks. This does not mean that the members of the church were passive: the concept of ‘the body’, especially in 1 Cor. 12, reveals the active contribution of every member. Following the Jewish model women took part in the service, prayed and prophesied publicly (1 Cor. 11.2-16), but they were not supposed to act as teachers (1 Cor. 14.33-36). Unfortunately, we do not know how the religious authorities in Corinth were named, because Paul uses different terms. But although the words may vary, the content hardly differed much from the Jewish zĕqēnîm, later called πρεσβύτεροι, even in Pauline terrain. Stephanas certainly belonged to this group, whose members should, in Paul’s opinion, lead the church.

195-201); such a development meant that hierarchy and ‘Frühkatholi­zismus’ replaced freedom in the Spirit. Käsemann asks why even Protestants have left the Pauline heritage to sectarians (‘Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament’, 202-5). According to Holtz (Der erste Brief and die Thessalonicher, 243-4), 1 Thessalonians recognises the function but not the office: the authority of leaders lies in their work. In Holtz’s view, the ‘office’, a tight link to the workers in the early church, was a step still unknown in 1 Thessalonians (‘die feste Verbindung mit Personen, die zu Trägern dieser Funktionen bestimmt sind’, Der erste Brief and die Thessalonicher, 244). According to Roloff (‘Amt / Ämter / Amtsverständis IV’, 521; see also p. 522), the leadership grew from ‘aktuelle Bedürfnissen’ (but see his reservation in Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 172 n. 315). See also, for example, E. Schweizer, ‘Das Amt’, 217-19 (in ‘Nachtrag 1975’); and Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 18.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

65

The only person whose name and title of ‘office’104 we know in the region of Corinth was Phoebe, perhaps a wealthy woman called διάκονος τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς. The same term is used in Phil. 1.1, where the religious authorities are called ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι. This is also the only occurrence of the word ἐπίσκοπος in the homologoumena. Most scholars assume two different orders, the one with ἐπίσκοποι, used in churches with mainly gentile background, and the other with πρεσβύτεροι, used in churches with mainly Jewish background.105 In their details, the historical reconstructions differ markedly. Some scholars claim that the two ‘offices’ were originally identical but later became partly distinguished from each other.106 According to others, Luke / Past. unintentionally merged the two orders.107 Other scholars claim that Luke / Past. intentionally tried to replace one order with another, mostly either the ‘episcopal’ with the 104.  The position of Phoebe is, of course, disputed. However, allowing her ‘office’ to disappear is all too often a clear intention. Dunn, who himself uses the word ‘office’, writes in his commentary (Romans, 887) as follows: ‘At the same time it would be premature to speak of an established office of diaconate, as though a role of responsibility and authority, with properly appointed succession, had already been agreed upon in the Pauline churches’. That we cannot answer detailed questions about Phoebe’s ‘office’, especially succession, does not exclude the possibility that the members of the church in Cenchrea and Rome knew what it meant to be a ‘deacon’ in a church. 105.  The first scholar who assumed there were two different ecclesiastical orders was A. Harnack, who initially (1883) classified the ‘elders’ in a non-charismatic hierarchy and the ‘bishops’ in a more charismatic system; Harnack took material for this construction from the work of Hatch. When the Didache was discovered (1883), Harnack immediately (1884) revised his theory, presenting three orders, namely, (a) an enthusiastic order with no offices, (b) a patriarchal order with ‘elders’ and (c) an administrative order with democratically elected ‘bishops’ (see Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt, 7-14). The two orders became communis opinio. Käsemann writes about πρεσβυτήριον as follows: ‘Denn mit Bestimmheit lässt sich behaupten, dass die paulinische Gemeinde zu Lebzeiten des Apostels ein Presbyterium nicht besessen hat’ (‘Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament’, 196); see also Greeven, ‘Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus’, 356-9; J. Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief (Herder Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 10/3; Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 34-5; Roloff, ‘Amt / Ämter / Amtsverständis IV’, 523; Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 175-6. According to Schneider (‘Das Amt der frühen Kirche’, 27), the offices of ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος still lived side by side, although the first originated in the Hellenistic, the latter in the Jewish world. 106.  For example, Schelkle, ‘Dienste und Diener in der neutestamentlichen Zeit’, 228. 107.  Gnilka (Der Philipperbrief, 32-4) gives a balanced overview of the religious authorities in the Pauline churches and concludes: ‘Das “geistliche” Amt dominiert,

66

Institutions of the Emerging Church

‘presbyterian’ or the other way around, 108 or intended to retain both.109 Although the terms ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι are now used in a letter sent to a church with only little Jewish colour – and I am aware that I am disagreeing with a wide consensus – I doubt whether a difference of another structure with πρεσβύτεροι according to the Jewish model can be demonstrated from the sources. It should be observed that the words ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτεροι occur so rarely in the Corpus Paulinum that a historical continuum should only be drawn with caution. Actually, it is strange that the few appearances of the word in the homologoumena (ἐπίσκοπος once in Phil. 1.1; πρεσβύτερος never) should have been enough for a reconstruction in a typical Jewish system considered alien to the historical Paul. That the ‘presbyterian’ system was considered Jewish was not a recommendation, neither for Harnack nor in the atmosphere before the Second World War. However, scholars have not proved that the word ἐπίσκοπος would have been a fixed title borrowed from the Greek world. Moreover, the small church at Philippi had several ‘bishops’, because the Jewish background resulted in other churches having several ‘elders’ (we never hear of a single leader). We simply do not have enough material to prove and define the alleged difference. The writers of the first Christian century do not consider the words ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος mutually exclusive. That Tit. 1.6-9 already seems to use the words interchangeably and that Luke speaks of πρεσβύτεροι in the Acts in Pauline terrain, but of ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι in 20.17, 28 does not support the assumption that one church order was replaced with another. Nor does 1 Clem. 44 bolster the assumption. It is probable that the church in Corinth, which had a partly Jewish background, was influenced by a Jewish model, and Paul emphasises the practice of ‘all churches’. The very general sense of the word ἐπίσκοπος does not permit us to reconstruct with any certainty a system essentially different from that of ‘elders’: different words do not necessarily imply different structures, and die Namen wechseln, primärer Verantwortungsträger ist die Gesamtgemeinde’. This is also the conclusion of, for example, Beyer and Karpp (‘Bischoff’, 400-403). 108.  For example, Greeven, ‘Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus’, 360; Käsemann, ‘Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament’, 196-7; Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 150; Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, 91; Schneider, ‘Das Amt der frühen Kirche’, 25-7. 109.  According to Schöllgen, the writers of the Pastoral Epistles tried to retain both: ‘Die Pastoralbriefe wären dann ähnlich wie 1 Clem der Versuch einer theol. Zusammenschau der beiden Verfassungen, allerdings eher im Sinne eines Neben­ einanderstellens als einer Integration oder Identifikation der Einzelämter’ (‘Bischof’, 1614-15).



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

67

if they do, we do not have sufficient extant sources to investigate them. If two different structures existed, neither the writer of the Deuteropaulines nor Luke addressed the difference. The reason is not necessarily historical inaccuracy, still less a distortion of history, although the biblical writers do not honour a generally accepted modern reconstruction. More likely, as the earliest sources attest, the terms varied and the same persons could be called either ‘bishops’ or ‘elders’. A very interesting feature of the Deuteropaulines is their treatment of early Christian prophets and prophecy. Prophecy was so important for the historical Paul that one could expect the prophets mentioned by other early Christian writers to be mentioned in the Deuteropaulines. To be sure, Ephesians mentions them, but it seems to look back to prophets as it does to the apostles. 1 Timothy 4.4 mentions a prophetic revelation, but in a new context. Apparently, scholars have justly assumed that the role of the prophets was markedly reduced in post-Pauline times. The Corpus Paulinum also contains some other words, such as διδάσκα­ λος, εὐαγγελιστής and ποιμήν. However, there is no need to consider these as fixed titles. All in all, the investigation of titles might not be the best way to explore the mutual relationship of the Christian community vis-à-vis the religious authorities of the local churches. We do not find a consistent terminology in the first Christian century. What we do find is a living community served by people appointed to this position. Appendix: The Text of 1 Corinthians 14.26-40 Scholars have long doubted the integrity of the passage in 1 Cor. 14.26-40. Originally, scholars like Straatman and Bousset suggested that vv. 34-35, which are placed after v. 40 in some manuscripts of the ‘Western’ text (manuscripts D, F and G), might be an early gloss inserted into the text only later.110 Then, Conzelmann suggested that vv. 33-36 were written by a later hand,111 a view which, though not supported by any manuscript evidence, 110.  A detailed argumentation was written by G. Fitzer (Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde’. Über den unpaulinischen Charakter der mulier-taceat-Verse in 1. Korinther 14 [Theologische Existenz heute 110; Munich: Kaiser, 1963]); see also C. K. Barrett (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [Black’s New Testament Commentaries; London: Black, 1968], 330-4) and Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 479-501. Recently, P. B. Payne defended the view with some new arguments; see ‘Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5’, NTS 41 (1995): 240-62. 111.  H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 289-90.

68

Institutions of the Emerging Church

has nevertheless been accepted by numerous scholars;112 sometimes more verses are added to the alleged interpolation.113 The interpolation argument relies solely on the view that the verses do not fit the context and seem alien to Paul. What the arguments have in common is the claim that the language and the theology of the passage are non-Pauline. However, to merge these two theories114 and to handle them as one, as Lang does, for example, is a mistake.115 Indeed, all attempts to make the text run smoother by deleting vv. 34-35 contradict the opinion that vv. 33-36 might be an interpolation. Scholars who consider vv. 34-35 to be an interpolation point to a variant in manuscripts D, F and G that places the passage after v. 40. The verses may be an early gloss originally written in the margin, and transmitted differently. However, every Greek manuscript known to us contains the verses. Evidence predicted by Fitzer116 has not materialized, although Payne examines some aspects of the transmission.117 Moreover, it is a characteristic feature of ‘Western’ texts to harmonize and move words.118 Thus textual 112.  See Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 481. 113.  Dautzenberg (Urchristliche Prophetie, 253-6) considers vv. 33b-38 to be an interpolation. On other variations, see Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 481. 114.  Heinrici once suggested that Paul himself wrote these verses as a marginal annotation; see Heinrici apud Lietzmann An die Korinther (4th ed. completed by W. G. Kümmel; HNT 9; 2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1949), 75, but his view is mentioned only rarely (however, see Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1149). 115.  P. Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther (NTD 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 199-201, referring to Conzelmann’s, Dautzenberg’s and Fitzer’s views, stated ‘dass der Abschnitt V. 33b-36 als Einschub eines Schreibers aus der Situation der Pastoralbriefe zu beurteilen ist’. However, several scholars consider certain verses to be interpolations – Fitzer, vv. 34-35; Conzelmann, vv. 33b-36; and Dautzenberg, vv. 33b-38. Yet their justifying arguments vary widely. A similar merging of two mutually mainly contradicting theories on the topic appears in Witherington’s book, Women in the Earliest Churches, 90-104. 116.  Fitzer, ‘Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde’, 6-9. 117.  According to Payne (’Fuldensis’, 240-62) two manuscripts support the theory. Codex Fuldensis, an important manuscript of the Vulgate from the year 546, contains two readings of the passage, with the verses in the main text, without them in the margin. Codex Vaticanus has a symbol in the margin that may refer to a textual problem recognised by the copyist. However, although Codex Fuldensis is indeed based on the work of Victor of Capua, the reading in the margin perhaps only means that he knew the reading of the ‘Western’ text. This is perhaps also the meaning of the symbol in Codex Vaticanus. 118.  B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (London: UBS, 1971), xviii.



Koskenniemi The Religious Authorities in the Corpus Paulinium

69

criticism itself does thus not strongly support the theory, and it is easy to understand why the critical editions do not fulfill Fitzer’s hope119 that the passage should be handled as in Jn 7.53–8.11.120 Further arguments for the theory have been that the language and the theology of the verse are non-Pauline, but the evidence is meagre, because Paul uses most of these words.121 By contrast, the theology of the passage presents a more serious challenge. Based on the historical continuum drawn by supporters of the theory, women were active in the Pauline churches in which the ‘offices’ had little or no significance in terms of charismatic freedom. The roles of women were reduced only later, in the times of the Pastorals and in quarrels among heretic teachers; this was the time during which an anonymous writer added the verses of 1 Cor. 14.34-35. As seen above, I have presented a different historical reconstruction in this article. However, it should be emphasized that Paul certainly limits the activity of women in 1 Cor. 11.2-16, a passage that fits poorly the reconstruction assumed by supporters of the interpolation theory. Few scholars have chosen to delete vv. 11.2-16. The rest must live with the knowledge that the historical Paul somehow limited the activity of women, although he warmly thanked them for their work in the churches and also recommended Phoebe. But does the text run smoother if vv. 34-35 are deleted? This solution would result in a text in which the words ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων (v. 34a) belong together with οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ

119.  See Fitzer ‘Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde’, 8. 120.  Recent scholars have tended to reject the theory of interpolation more often than before, see Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches, 90-104; C. Niccum, ‘The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14. 34-35’, NTS 43 (1997), 242-55; Collins, First Corinthians, 511-17; Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1147-50. 121.  Fitzer claimed that the words and the arguments are frequent in 1 Timothy and are non-Pauline (ἐπιτρέπω, νόμος, and the Old Testament as an argument). According to Fitzer, ‘die Formel’, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει. does not appear in the Pauline letters (‘Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde’, 9-13). However, he has overlooked 1 Cor. 9.8 (ὴ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα οὐ λέγει). The problematic verb ἐπιτρέπω is Pauline (1 Cor. 16.7), as is ὑποτάσσεσθαι (on the alleged differences in the use of these words, see Payne, ‘Fuldensis’, 248-9) (Rom. 8.7, 20; 10.3; 13.1, 5; 1 Cor. 14.32; 15.27; 16.16; Phil. 3.21). The argument αἰσχρὸν … γυναικί with infinitive (κείρασθαι, λαλεῖν) appears in 1 Cor. 11.6 and 14.35 (Brosché and Cavallin, Manssamhällets försvarare – eller skapelsens?, 45); it is hard to see why Payne (‘Fuldensis’, 247) considers the arguments different. To sum up, the words used do not support the theory of interpolation, a conclusion shared, for example, by Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches, 90-2.

70

Institutions of the Emerging Church

εἰρήνης (v. 33b). But does Paul indeed have to emphasise that God is the Lord of peace everywhere?122 Perhaps the verses do not disturb the train of thought in the passage at all (see below). As mentioned above, in 1969 Conzelmann presented a more radical solution, namely, that vv. 33b-36 and not just vv. 34-35 are a non-Pauline interpolation.123 This view, of course, is not based on manuscripts but on literary criticism.124 According to Conzelmann, these verses are alien to the topic of prophecy. Furthermore, they destroy the context and stand in opposition to the passage 11.2-16. The arguments vary: while some scholars consider the language of the alleged interpolation non-Pauline, Dautzenberg considers it to be fully Pauline.125 An argument common to all is that the passage reflects a life alien to that in the Pauline churches but related to the Pastorals.126 But does the deleting of verses – 34-35 or 33b-36 or more – improve the train of thought? Tomson has presented a totally different view based on the fact that Paul opens and closes the passage in 1 Cor. 11–14 by referring to the role of women in the church. Tomson claims that Paul does so because of the Jewish roots of Christianity, not only in his local churches but also in Jerusalem.127 Other scholars have considered the vv. 26-40 a summary of the entire passage, i.e. a collection of rules for worship (Gemeinderegel). Dautzenberg claims that the addition – in his opinion written in Pauline language – is very shrewdly placed among these rules. In this view v. 26 serves as an introduction in which several parts of the service are mentioned (a) singing, (b) instruction, (c) revelation and (d) speaking in tongues. Thereafter follow rules regarding tongues (vv. 27-28), revelation (29-33a) and instruction (vv. 33b-36). Dautzenberg himself wondered why there is n o rule for instruction,128 but if the interpretation preferred above (pp. 47–48) is correct, then the verses on the activity of women in the service precisely fill in this missing rule.129 122.  Witherington (Women in the Earliest Churches, 96) wisely doubts that. 123.  Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 290-1. 124.  On Lang and the merging of two mutual exclusive theories, see above, p. 68. 125.  According to Dautzenberg, both ἐπιτρέπεται and the imperatives belong to the language of the rules in the vv. 26-40. The only stylistic differences would be the missing article in v. 29 (αἱ γύναικες but προπφήται) and the sequence of words (Urchristliche Prophetie, 257-8). 126.  On this argument, see above, pp. 47–48. 127.  Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 131-9. 128.  Dautzenberg, Urchristliche Prophetie, 254. 129.  Paul does not give a rule for hymns. Apparently, either the strong words (vv. 36-38) led his thoughts to other topics, or he had no rule to give.

A N ew L ife to L ive : A n A spect of S ome B aptismal T exts from the S econd - and T hird - G eneration C hurch Lars Hartman

1. Introduction Tertullian, born about AD 155, was the first to write a treatise De Baptismo. But, when Paul, for example, touches on baptism in his letters, e.g. in Rom. 6.1-14, he does so, not in order to inform his audience on baptism or to develop a doctrine of baptism, but in order to make another point, using a detail of his and/or others’ baptismal thinking as an argument. When, for one reason or another, baptism appears as a topic in early Christian texts, the context often has to do with ethics, and the author emphasizes that the addressees have passed from a former life into their present state as Christians. Actually, from its very beginning, the Christian baptism has apparently been what the scholars in the field of comparative religion call a rite de passage.1 Such a transition is often connected with negative characterizations of that which is left behind – death, darkness, chaos, misery or dirt – whereas the new status is described as life, light, salvation, cleanness.2 This is clearly the case in Rom. 6.1-14: to step out of

1.  The designation was coined by A. van Gennep, Les rites de passage: étude systématique des rites (Paris: Librairie critique Émile Nourry, 1909), 71ff. See further M. Eliade, Birth and Rebirth: The Religious Meanings of Initiation in Human Culture (trans. W. R. Trask; London: Harville, 1958), esp. chapter 6. 2.  Cf. M. Eliade, Traité d’histoire des religions: morphologie du sacré (Paris: Payot, 1949), § 64; Eliade, The Sacred and the Prophane (trans. W. R. Trask; New York: Harcourt Brace, 1959), 130-41, 184-96; G. Widengren, Religionsphänomenologie (trans. R. Elguowski; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), 218, 223-5, 385.

72

Institutions of the Emerging Church

the reign of sin and death into life-giving communion with Christ implies a life of justice and virtue.3 In the following pages, I will focus on how some baptismal texts describe the situation of the Christians before and after their baptism. The texts chosen are from the second and third Early Christian generations, i.e. they originate from the end of the first century and from the first decades of the second century. This means that I will leave the proto-Pauline material aside.4 This might be a useful exercise, since it will help us to avoid an unconscious reading through Pauline spectacles. The texts chosen represent different genres and different traditions, and they may thus tell us something about both unity and variety in the church. The Pastoral Epistles belong to the period of the first or second generation following the life of the Apostle. They seem to represent a circle that revered the Pauline heritage and adapted it to a new situation.5 The Gospel of John is an important witness to a particular way of doing theology in the late apostolic period. The passage on baptism in the Didache belongs to a quite particular literary genre, namely that of the church orders.6 Finally, Justin’s description of baptism is written for outsiders and is intensely coloured by the fact that it forms part of an apology.

3.  See also 1 Cor. 5.9-11; Gal. 4.8-10; Col. 1.21-2; 3.7-8; Eph. 2.1-22; Heb. 10.22. On the topic see P. Tachau, ‘Einst’ und ‘Jetzt’ im Neuen Testament: Beobachtungen zu einem urchristlichen Predigtschema in der neutestamentlichen Briefliteratur und zu seiner Vorgeschichte (FRLANT 105; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). 4.  On baptism in Paul see e.g. L. Hartman, ‘Into the Name of the Lord Jesus’: Baptism in the Early Christian Church (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 51-81 (with references to earlier literature). 5.  Here I follow exegetes such as M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (trans. Ph. Buttolph and A. Yarbro; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 1; J. Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKKNT 15; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 43-6; J. D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary and An Introduction to Titus, I and II Timothy, The Pastoral Epistles (AB 35; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 17-22; H. Merkel, Die Pastoralbriefe (NTD 9/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 9; L. Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe I. Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief (HTKNT 11/2.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), xxvi. 6.  Thus I join the scholarly majority in its dating of the Didache. I am not convinced by A. Milavec, whose opinion is visible already in the title of his book, The Didache, Faith & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities 50–70 C. E. (New York/Mahwah: Newman, 2003).



Hartman A New Life to Live

73

2. Some Baptismal Texts a. Titus 3.1-7 The Pastoral Epistles form, as it were, a full stop to the collection of the Pauline letters,7 which is indicated not least by the testament form of Second Timothy. Their author is anxious to keep the addressees within the Pauline heritage as represented by him and his colleagues. This means being loyal to the ordained ministry of the Church and keeping the stable social structures both within family and in society. In the second part of the epistolary corpus of the letter, Tit. 2.1–3.15, ‘Paul’ instructs ‘Titus’ for his pastoral task in two phases, followed by some concluding advice for the community leader (3.8-11). Each of the two phases is introduced by an imperative, ‘speak’ (2.1) and ‘remind’ (3.1), respectively. Both phases contain an admonishing part followed by a reference to the foundational divine salvation. In its literary form the first collection of admonitions (2.1-10) resembles the so-called household codes (Haustafeln), and the addressees should cultivate these virtues in such a way that neither they themselves nor the word of God are defamed (vv. 5, 8, 10). The second group of admonitions widens the view to include the surrounding society: (3.1) Remind them to submit themselves to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, (2) not to defame anyone, not to be quarrelsome, to be gentle, showing all humility to all men. (3) For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, going astray, slaves to different passions and lusts, passing our days in malice and envy, abominable, hating one another. (4) But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared, (5) he saved us, not because of any deeds of righteousness which we had done, but according to his mercy, by a bath of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, (6) which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ, our Saviour, (7) in order that we, justified through his grace, might become heirs of eternal life, as we hope.

The argument advances in three steps. The first one is a ‘reminder’, listing seven virtues (vv. 1-2), the second (v. 3) represents a contrast in terms of time and content, listing seven vices which are said to have been typical of ‘our’ past. The introductory ‘for’ (γάρ) achieves the effect that this second step is held together with the following one, so that together they tell the reason why the addressees should observe the virtues listed in vv. 1-2. This third step, vv. 4-7, contrasts God’s salvific action to ‘our’ vicious past. Thus the logical structure of 3.1-5(7) is as follows: remind them to live virtuously, for we once lived viciously but God saved us from 7.  E.g. Oberlinner, Pastoralbriefe I, xxvi.

74

Institutions of the Emerging Church

such a life, certainly not because of any righteous deeds but out of his mercy through a bath of renewal. From what ‘we’ were saved is not explicitly stated, but we may safely assume that it was at least from a situation characterized by the vices. Cf. Tit. 2.14: Christ gave himself up ‘to redeem us from every lawlessness (ἀνομία)’. What, then, is the old life which the Christians have left behind at their baptism? It may be wise to read the list of vices in v. 3 in the light of the preceding vv. 1-2. Thus being ‘disobedient’ is the opposite of to ‘obey’ and, to some extent, of submission to rulers and authorities.8 Furthermore, to be ‘ready for every good work’ (v. 1) is opposed to living in malice and envy. Not to defame or be quarrelsome but gentle and humble is contrasted to being abominable and hating one another. Thus putting the two lists next to each other sheds light on both of them. They concern common, social virtues and do not immediately sound particularly Christian. Nevertheless the negative parallelism is a little loose, and ‘being foolish’ and ‘going astray’ hardly have any contrasting counterparts among the virtues. This seems to indicate that the dark background contains more than the lack of the somewhat vague social and civil virtues of vv. 1-2. So, the foolishness as well as the disobedience and the going astray may describe people who are ignorant of God, who do not know God’s will, and who worship false gods, just as such expressions do in other New Testament passages, such as Acts 17.30; Rom. 1.21-32; Eph. 4.18.9 In such examples, these shortcomings are presented as typically pagan, and many commentators assume that a similar reference should be assumed in our text.10 ‘Paul’s’ labelling of a life in different passions and lusts as slavery has its counterpart in Rom. 6.16-21 and 2 Pet. 2.19, but this picture was also commonplace in the Graeco-Roman world.11 Cf. e.g. Epictetus’ Gnomologium 38: ‘Liberate yourself from slavery. You are liberated, if you liberate yourself from desire.’ In our context it can also be linked with the salvation mentioned: becoming a Christian means liberation from this bondage. 8.  Concerning the somewhat harsh asyndeton ‘rulers, authorities’, see I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 299. 9.  Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 309. 10.  Thus e.g. V. Hasler, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Pastoralbriefe) (ZBKNT 12; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978), 95; Merkel, Pastoralbriefe, 102. L. Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe III. Kommentar zum Titusbrief (HTKNT 11/2.3; Freiburg: Herder, 1996), 167. In his homilies on Titus, John Chrysostom takes it for granted that the vices enumerated in v. 2 are such as are found among gentiles and he describes them at large (PG 92, 693-4). 11.  Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 310.



Hartman A New Life to Live

75

The third step in this argument, vv. 4-7, makes, so to speak, the ‘for’ (γάρ) of v. 3 land, that is, there ‘Titus’ arrives at the ultimate reason why he should exhort the community to practise the virtues of vv. 1-2. The axis around which the argument revolves is that God saved ‘us’. This salvation occurred at a particular time,12 namely when God’s goodness was revealed; there is a particular basis underneath it, presented both negatively and positively. The text thus receives a certain accent on God’s mercy and not our righteous deeds. Salvation, given at this time and on this foundation, was effected through a particular means, i.e. baptism. This means is then characterized more precisely: it was through a bath of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. The final element of this characterization, the Holy Spirit, is then further described in the relative clause of v. 6. Finally, v. 7 presents the purpose (‘in order that’, ἵνα) of God’s saving action: ‘we’ were to become heirs with a hope of eternal life. It is noteworthy that the author begins this final clause by repeating what I have called the basis: ‘(in order that we,) justified through his grace…’. Thus God’s merciful initiative is put forward three times, at the opening, as the point of departure of God’s salvific action, in the presentation of its foundation, and as a reminder when its goal is stated. So what is the new situation, which God has achieved by saving the Christians, like? It is negatively characterized by their deliverance from a situation marked by foolishness, various desires, hatred, etc. A salient positive feature is that the Christians are the object of God’s mercy. That ‘was revealed’ in the salvation through baptism, but it is fair to assume that the author indirectly takes into account that salvation through baptism had as its presupposition the ‘appearance’ of God’s mercy in Christ (see 2 Tim. 1.9-10, and cf. Tit. 2.11-13).13 The result of salvation is intimated by the series of genitives following ‘bath’ in v. 5: ‘(bath) of regeneration and of renewal of the Holy Spirit’. It seems almost impossible to find an undisputable grammatical definition of each of them, and it may even be wise to realize that we may be demanding more precision than is fair from the Greek. But let me follow an exegete whose knowledge of the Greek of the time is indisputable, namely John Chrysostom. In his homilies on Titus he expresses himself as follows; after quoting Tit. 3.4-5 he continues: 12.  The following analysis is rather similar to that in Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 307. 13.  Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 312; G. W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992), 339. Oberlinner, Pastoralbriefe III, 170: the appearance of God’s grace in Christ is topical in the present and has a determinative effect on it.

76

Institutions of the Emerging Church Bless me! How drenched we were in the evil; we could not be cleansed but needed renewal. For this is what regeneration means. For, just as in the case of a rotten house, nobody puts up a stay or patches up the old constructions but tears it down to the foundations and then raises and makes a new one, so too did he: he did not repair us but built us anew. For that is what this means; ‘and of renewal of the Holy Spirit’. He made us new from the outset. How? Through (διά) the Spirit.14

That is, John holds ‘regeneration’ and ‘renewal’ together, and he reads the text as saying that they were both effected by the Spirit.15 I see no exegetical or linguistic reasons not to follow his understanding of this passage. Thus the new situation is created by God throughout, and this means that radically new conditions of life apply. In densely formulated phrases the author states how they came about. First, they were effected through the Spirit: that is, through the external sign of baptism God saved those who were baptized by his invisible but effective present activity. Secondly, the relative clause on the rich outpouring of the Spirit (cf. Joel 2.28; Rom. 5.5; Acts 2.17-18) indicates that this divine activity is not confined to the moment of baptism but is a power still at work in the Christian life. It is not totally clear how the adverbial phrase ‘through Jesus Christ our Saviour’ should be understood, but the author apparently found it necessary to determine the outpouring of the Spirit in this way. In the light of other passages in the Pastoral Epistles (Tit. 2.13-14; 1 Tim. 2.3-7; 2 Tim. 1.9-11) the phrase seems to imply that the salvific work of Christ was the earthly starting point for the divine salvation, which has been made topical in baptism.16 Furthermore, this salvation and continued activity of the Spirit have moral implications. This is already intimated by the participial phrase in v. 7a, ‘justified (δικαιωθέντες) through his grace’, which summarizes and interprets the result of God’s work for the Christians. To have been the object of God’s grace in spite of one’s lack of righteous deeds equals having been made righteous. So ‘justified’ becomes an echo from v. 5 – ‘not through deeds of righteousness (ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)’ – and should rather be read as a reference to a status than be ascribed a forensic nuance of meaning.17 14.  PG 62, 692. 15.  ‘Regeneration’ was a concept used in contemporary religious contexts (see Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoralbriefe, 148-50) but also more generally in reference to renewal (see Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 319-20; Oberlinner, Pastoralbriefe III, 175). 16.  See Hartman, Into the Name, 110-11. Also Oberlinner, Pastoralbriefe III, 176. 17.  Hasler, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 97; Oberlinner, Pastoralbriefe III, 177; Quinn, Titus, 226-8.



Hartman A New Life to Live

77

The new situation means new possibilities to live a righteous life, not least because of the active presence of God’s Spirit. The following v. 8 points in the same direction: ‘Titus’ should make sure that his flock is careful to apply itself to good deeds. But above all, the righteous state of the Christians, including their possession of the Spirit, form the reason and the context for the duty to be ‘ready for every good work’ etc. as required in vv. 1-2. Finally, God’s saving action, including the gift of the Spirit, has an ultimate goal (v. 7). The new situation, beginning at baptism, opens out to the eschaton, and the use of the ‘heir’ image gives to the ‘hope of eternal life’ a nuance of anticipation in the sense that, in a certain manner, one already possesses this life.18 This is, after all, the perspective of the exhortations to a good civil and social morality (vv. 1-2). b. John 2.23–3.21 In the composition of the Fourth Gospel it seems to be of some importance that Jn 2.23–3.2119 is preceded by the story of the cleansing of the Temple. On closer inspection, the imagery of the temple seems to summarize in a pictorial manner what Jesus and his work actually mean to humans, e.g. that he is the ‘place’ where God and humans meet (1.14; 14.6, 9, 10; 16.2324), where forgiveness can be obtained (11.51-52; 20.23) and where divine revelation is mediated (1.18; 5.19; 14.24).20 Then, in 2.23–3.21 the readers encounter the first longer discursive presentation by Jesus, in which they are told how a new life from God is offered, and also how some people refuse to accept this offer. Thus two central themes from the Prologue are picked up, the gift of divine life and light (1.4-5, 9) and being born from God (1.12-13), or not (1.10-11). John 3.1-2121 falls into three parts, vv. 1-3, 4-8 and 9-21. Each part begins with an utterance by Nicodemus, which Jesus answers. In the second of these answers, we encounter a brief hint at baptism (v. 5), and thus it appears within a longer discourse, of which the theme is not baptism

18.  Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 307. 19.  Together with several other commentators I regard 2.23-25 as an introduction to 3.1-21. See e.g. U. Wilckens, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (NTD 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 64. The ‘episode-markers’ ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘Passover’ (v. 23) support this reading. 20.  L. Hartman, ‘ “He Spoke of the Temple of His Body” (Jn 2:13-22)’, SEÅ 54 (1989): 70-9; U. Schnelle, ‘Die Tempelreinigung und die Christologie des Johannes­ evangeliums’, NTS 42 (1996): 559-73. 21.  This pericope is discussed with special regard to baptism in Hartman, Into the Name, 155-9.

78

Institutions of the Emerging Church

but which has a wider scope. In each of the three answers, a key statement occurs with some variation: ‘unless one is born anew/from above, one cannot see the kingdom of God’ (v. 3), ‘unless one is born anew/from above by water and Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God’ (v. 5), and ‘whoever believes in him shall have eternal life’ (v. 15). Whereas the central notion of the first two statements is the Kingdom of God, in the third this non-Johannine term is replaced by a typical Johannine one, viz. eternal life.22 When considered in the light of the Christologically loaded Jn 2.13-22, the third part of this dialogue has a decisive weight, rendering as it does Christologically founded answers to the question of how ‘this’ can be so, namely how anyone can enter the Kingdom of God/have eternal life by being born again and/or from above through water and Spirit. The answer to this ‘how’ is that it is possible when the Son has been ‘lifted up’, i.e. has been crucified, and so has gone to his Father (cf. 12.32, 34; 13.1; 14.12, 28). In the second part of this answer, vv. 15-21, the conditions of this new, ‘eternal’ life are described: they are rooted in God’s love (v. 16), that life is received by faith (vv. 16, 18), and the believers are not condemned (v. 18); the believers stand in contrast to the non-believers, who, because of their evil deeds, have not come to the light (vv. 18-20). As the topic of this article is defined, we can now concentrate on how the different situations of the non-Christian and the Christian respectively are described in this passage.23 The first thing to observe is that the temporal differentiation between ‘once’ and ‘now’ does not apply here. The difference is instead one of essence or being, i.e. between flesh and spirit. The connection with the preceding statement on being ‘born anew/from above’ indicates that ‘spirit’ refers to God’s spirit, in other words, to a divine activity. ‘Flesh’ stands for human nature, which is weak and mortal, and, as R. E. Brown expresses it, this weakness means ‘the radical inability of the natural to raise itself’.24 Having been born by beings of the same nature, the human being belongs to the sphere of the flesh and is unable to reach the

22.  Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John (2nd ed.; London: SPCK, 1978), 215. 23.  Since I focus on the Gospel of John as we now have it, I do not consider Bultmann’s suggestion that ‘and of water’ in v. 5 may belong to a later stage of the development of the text of this Gospel; R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (10th ed. 1941; repr.; Meyer 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 98. 24.  R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i–xii) (AB 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 160.



Hartman A New Life to Live

79

heavenly, divine world.25 A divine initiative is necessary; in the words of 6.44: ‘no one comes to me [i.e. to Jesus] unless the Father who has sent me draws him’. If, in Jesus’ second answer, belonging to the sphere of the flesh is the negative presupposition for the birth from above and from the Spirit, so in his third answer the position of the believer is contrasted to that of the unbeliever. Therefore, in a way, the unbeliever’s position can be taken together with the one determined by the flesh. Thus, we encounter another way of talking of the evil deeds of the non-Christians, similar but also very dissimilar to that of, for example, ‘Paul’ in Titus 3. Certainly, the unbelievers’ deeds are evil, and for that reason they remain in the dark and shun the light; they do not ‘come to’ the light, i.e. they do not believe in it. By their refusal they have judged themselves already here and now, in the present (v. 18; cf. 1.10-11). Their doing evil actually comes close to not believing; cf. 6.29: ‘this is the work of God: that you believe in him whom he has sent’. Undeniably, the contents of these statements seem to reflect a deterministic dualism: some are only flesh and they do evil deeds and do not come to the light, whereas others do the truth and come to the light (vv. 20-21). It even seems as if some, when they do come to the light, realize what they really are.26 But the context, stressing God’s love to the world as the point of departure for his sending the Son (3.16), intimates that there is a note of warning in the text; in spite of what seems to be a hopeless situation, the author hopes that the unbelievers will change their mind (cf. 20.30-31). In other words, the perspective is the mystery of people who do not receive the message of Christ and of the church. A crucial image in our text is the one of being born (see already 1.12-13). It stands for becoming a human being, a person with an individual existence.27 Thus, a new birth means new life-conditions, a new existence, given by God and determined by his unfathomable power (v. 8). Using other, ‘eschatological’ terms, this kind of existence can also be called ‘eternal life’, possessed already in this life by the believers (cf. 5.24). They do not ‘perish’ (v. 16), that is, God’s lifegiving relationship with them is not broken by death (v. 16; 10.28; 11.25-26). Nor is it threatened by any judgment, which means eternal rejection away from God.28 Instead 25.  R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium 1. Teil. Einleitung und Kommentar zu Kap. 1–4 (HTKNT 4/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1965), 385. 26.  Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 113; Brown, The Gospel According to John, 149-50. 27.  Cf. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 37-8. 28.  Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium, 425.

80

Institutions of the Emerging Church

their whole life is carried by God’s love, and so their position is totally dissimilar to that of the unbelievers described by Bultmann in this way: ‘the unbelief gets the effect that God’s love becomes a judgment in that the unbelief shuts itself to the latter’.29 Apparently the thought structure of Jn 2.23–3.21 directs the attention of the readers to the believers’ present situation as characterized by their God-given new life. This has the effect that the entrance into this life, i.e. the rite of baptism, is mentioned only in passing. But its firm connection with the Spirit, and the fact that faith has the same instrumental function in v. 16 as baptism and the Spirit do in v. 5, demonstrates that for this author and for his community, baptism is the sacrament of faith, to use a term from scholasticism.30 So this first longer discourse in the Gospel of John strikes a theme which returns, time and time again, until 20.31: ‘in order that through faith you may have life in his name’ (cf. 1.4, 12-13; 5.24, 40; 11.25; 17.3). c. Didache31 In Did. 7.1-4 we encounter a few rather detailed rules concerning baptism. They prescribe what kind of water should or could be used, that baptism should be administered ‘into the name’ of the persons of the Trinity, and that the candidates, the officiating minister, and, if possible, a few other persons should fast before the rite takes place. One detail in this passage is of interest for our present discussion, namely what is said at the outset: ‘Concerning baptism, baptize in this way: after you have begun by saying all these things (ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες)…’ The words in italics refer to the preceding passage, Did. 1–6, which is introduced in this way: ‘There are two ways, one of life, the other of death’. In terms of tradition history, this passage certainly has a history of its own. It is an example of the paraenetic two ways-traditions.32 But here it comes as an element in the rite of baptism, and the part dealing with the way of death not only has an admonitory function, but also contains a description of the old conditions left behind by the newly baptized. The way of life, on the other

29.  Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 111 (my translation). 30.  E.g. Thomas Aquinas, Summa III, question 68, article 8. 31.  For a presentation of the theology of baptism in Didache, see A. Benoit, Le baptême Chrétien au second siècle: la théologie des Pères (EHPR 43; Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1953), 5-33; see also Milavec, Didache, 234-84 and Hartman, ‘Into the Name’, 172-7. 32.  See K. Niederwimmer, Die Didache (KAV 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 48–64; for earlier literature see pp. 83-4.



Hartman A New Life to Live

81

hand, although mainly functioning as paraenesis, also has a few features that characterize the new conditions following the transition, of which the ritual centre is baptism.33 Thus, we first turn to Did. 1–6 to find some answers to our question how the old and the new situations are depicted. The list of vices in the first lines of ‘the way of death’ is apparently inspired by the Decalogue, but the original prohibitions have been completed so as to include other sins, which belong to the same kind of misbehaviour. Thus the old commandments have gained greater relevance and now have a wider application.34 To adultery is added lust and fornication, to idolatry magic and sorcery, and to false testimony hypocrisy, a double heart, fraud, and pride.35 In 5.2 a further enumeration follows, now not of vices but of evildoers. It has no visible structure and the sins are, so to speak, less tangible: for example, the evildoers ‘do not know the reward of righteousness’, they ‘wake not for good but for wickedness’, they ‘love vanity’ and ‘are not merciful to the poor’. Their sins who ‘do not know him who made them’, and who ‘murder children’ and unjustly judge the poor are somewhat more specific. Several of these vices are such that Jews and early Christians considered them to be typically pagan, not least those of idolatry and sexual promiscuity. However, here they appear together with less serious sins. The upshot is that when the candidates for baptism are indirectly urged not to follow the way of death, they are at the same time warned not to fall back into paganism, namely in so far as they are gentile Christians. Furthermore, they are sternly told that being a Christian and giving in to, say, the love of vanity, or the strive for a reward, is a lethal way of behaviour, which leads to death. There are no direct indications in the context of what may be meant here by ‘death’, but we may take it to mean a loss of that life for which they give thanks in the prayer in 10.2: ‘we give thanks to you for the knowledge and faith and immortality that you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant’. A couple of lines further on in the same thanksgiving, thanks is given for ‘the eternal life’ which the Father has granted ‘us’ through Jesus.36

33.  Cf. Milavec, Didache, 267. Benoit, Baptème, 12-21, discusses at length how this inclusion of the ‘Two Ways’ has a counterpart in Jewish proselyte baptism. 34.  Cf. K. Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament, I. Markus und Parallelen (WMANT 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 258-361. 35.  For further analysis see Niederwimmer, Didache, 148-9. 36.  See also 4.8: the fellow-Christians are ‘sharers of immortality’ (ἐν τῷ ἀθανάτῳ κοινωνοί).

82

Institutions of the Emerging Church

It is natural to regard the way of life as an essential part of the already mentioned ‘knowledge, faith and immortality’ revealed by Jesus. Its introductory and overarching rule (1.2) is namely a quotation of Jesus’ commandment to love God above everything and one’s neighbour as oneself, to which has been added the so-called Golden Rule. This is followed by what is presented as ‘the teaching of these words’, i.e. of an explanatory exposition in the form of a series of semi-quotations from what seems to be the first part of the Sermon of the Mount, particularly the sayings about love for the enemy and about non-violence (1.3-5). In 2.2-7 we encounter a series of forbidden actions, largely structured according to the so-called second table of the Decalogue. The series is introduced as ‘the second commandment of the teaching’, and is thus set apart from the passages echoing Jesus tradition. Here the Decalogue commandments have also been embroidered by the addition of sins related to those forbidden in the Bible. Thus, to adultery, for example, has this time been added not only fornication, but also pederasty, and to false testimony speaking evil and bearing malice (2.3). A third group of rules in ‘the way of life’ consists of five sayings, introduced in the same way as those found in the wisdom tradition: ‘my child (τέκνον μου)’. They mainly warn against certain sins of the mind or of the tongue which can lead to acts of gross sin. Wrath, for example, may lead to murder (3.2), base words to adultery (3.3), and lying to theft (3.5). In a certain contrast to the imperative ‘my child, be not arrogant (αὐθάδης)’ (3.6) stand the admonitions of 3.7-10, which Niederwimmer labels ‘Anawim-Sprache’,37 and which reflect an ideal expressed in the first line: ‘but be you humble (πραΰς)’ (3.7). The next part of ‘the way of life’, 4.1-11, concerns the social duties of the Christian. Thus, to walk in the way of life implies acceptance of certain obligations within the Christian community (4.1-8): to show respect to one’s teachers (4.1-2), to avoid schisms (4.3-4), and to be generous and open-handed (4.5-8). Didache 4.9-11 turns the attention to the weakest members of the house, namely to children and slaves: the former shall be taught ‘the fear of the Lord’, and one must not give orders to the latter in bitterness; the slaves on their side should submit themselves to their masters as if to God. The conclusion of ‘The Two Ways’, 6.1-3, contains one piece of pastoral advice referring to the whole instruction, 6.1-2, and a brief regulation concerning food (6.3). The pastoral advice combines a serious

37.  Niederwimmer, Didache, 130.



Hartman A New Life to Live

83

admonition with pastoral realism: to err from the Way is against God’s will, but, on the other hand: ‘if you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect, but if you can’t, do what you can’ (6.2). ‘The yoke of the Lord’ obviously picks up the high moral standards from 1.2-6. When considering how the Didache reflects an assessment of a person’s situation before and after baptism, the final statement of the conclusion in 6.3 can function as a point of departure. It is mild on the biblical food rules: ‘do what you can’, but idol meat is strictly forbidden: ‘it is worship of dead gods’ (6.3). This prohibition can be regarded as reflecting a certain pride: the Christians ‘know’ (cf. 5.2; 9.3; 10.2) the real nature of pagan worship, and, unlike the evildoers (5.2), they ‘know him who has made them’. They also know the character of the pagan life style: it is a way of living that leads to death, whereas they have moral knowledge from the real God, revealed through Jesus, knowledge that baptism obliges them to apply in their daily life. When, at the end of the description of the way of death (5.2) the candidates for baptism hear ‘may you be delivered from all these (persons)’, it seems not only to presuppose that the persons mentioned form a danger from which they need to be saved, but also that they might represent a temptation which they need to resist. For ‘The Way of Life’ does not assume that the addressees are spiritual heroes; they are admonished not to be ‘of two minds (οὐ διψυχήσεις)’ (4.4), and it belongs to ‘the way of life’ to confess one’s transgressions within the Christian community (4.14).38 On the other hand, these not so spiritually athletic Christians are ‘holy’, i.e. they belong to the divine sphere. Thus, the instructions concerning the eucharist rule that only ‘those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name’ may share it, ‘for concerning this the Lord has also said, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs” ’ (9.5). Here their holiness is implied, but in 10.6 it is explicit: ‘if anyone is holy, let him come’.39 So, belonging to the divine sphere, they have a particular status. In addition, they have been brought into this sphere by God himself: he ‘has called’ them through the preparation of the Holy Spirit (4.10). In other words, their conversion, leading to baptism, is actually the result of a divine activity, drawing – or pushing – them into the divine sphere. The Creator (1.2; 10.3) has shown a personal interest in them.

38.  Also 14.1: ‘in order that your sacrifice may be pure’. Cf. Milavec, Didache, 547. 39.  In 4.2 the phrase ‘the holy ones’ refers to the teachers; Niederwimmer, Didache, 137.

84

Institutions of the Emerging Church

The high standard expressed as the ‘yoke of the Lord’ is in harmony with this fact. Indeed, the Didachist could have quoted the Code of Holiness in Leviticus: ‘be holy, for I am holy’ (Lev. 11.44). It seems that these ideals of holiness, of a life worthy of the Divine, can be said to be internalized in two ways. On the one hand, the Lord himself is said to be present wherever his word is taught in the Christian community (4.1).40 On the other, as baptized Christians,41 they pray after Holy Communion: ‘We give thanks to you, Holy Father, for your holy name, which you have made to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant’ (10.1). In other words, Jesus’ work is regarded as a divine epiphany, actual and effective in the personal centre of the Christian.42 But there is also a longer perspective: the way of life reaches beyond this earthly life. (Cf. 16.5: ‘those who endure in their faith will be saved’.) Thus, the baptismal passages of Didache do not explicitly refer to the evil and hopeless past of the Christians, contrasting that to their present blessed reality, but the cultic and pastoral instructions of this treatise contain features which, on a closer reading, reveal an outlook reminiscent of what we have met in Titus and John. Here, however, it is applied in a text of a different literary kind and in a new situation, when the Church is apparently facing new people coming from a world more marked by the common, pagan culture of Late Antiquity. d. Justin Martyr Of Justin43 only one major text which deals with baptism, namely ch. 61 in his First Apology, has been preserved, but he also touches on baptism in a couple of other passages (1 Apol. 66.1; Dial. 13–14; 18.2; 44.4).44 To anybody who poses questions about Justin’s thinking on baptism it is important to consider the literary genres which he is using. His apologies are meant for pagan readers who show contempt or persecute the Christians unjustly, accusing them of all kinds of wickedness. Justin wants to persuade them of the virtuous life that the Christians lead, and in so doing he also tells them some facts about the Christian religion.45 In addition, it seems 40.  The wording is linguistically obscure – but there are good reasons for the above understanding; see Niederwimmer, Didache, 136. 41.  Niederwimmer, Didache, 195, following Michaelis in TWNT, stresses that the indwelling of the Name is connected to a person’s status as having been baptized. 42.  Hartman, ‘Into the Name’, 174. 43.  Justin died as a martyr, probably in 165. 44.  See Benoit, Baptème, 141-2. 45.  See J. Quasten, Patrology. Vol. 1, The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1959), 199-201.



Hartman A New Life to Live

85

that he wants to present himself as a philosopher; this may well influence both his choice of material and his method in dealing with it.46 In the Dialogue, on the other hand, the literary form is different, although that could also be called an apology. Its purpose is to defend the Christian understanding of the Old Testament, not least the idea of Christ’s divinity and the belief that the gentile Christian church represents the new Israel.47 Accordingly, Justin argues, over and over again, that the Jews should convert to Christianity. These different purposes of the Apologies and of the Dialogue respectively, have the effect that, in so far as Justin reports on, or alludes to, baptism, he does so, not in order to present his theology on baptism, but for other reasons. Also, because of Justin’s particular rhetorical situation he does not deal directly with the particular aspect of baptism that is the focus of this paper. Let us begin with the passage in 1 Apol. that does deal directly with baptism, 1 Apol. 61: We shall also explain in which way we have dedicated ourselves to God, having been made new (καινοποιηθέντες) by Christ, in order that we may not appear to be improper in our explanation by omitting it. (2) All who have been persuaded and believe that that is true which is taught and said by us and who have promised to be able to live in that manner, are instructed to pray and entreat God by fasting for the remission of their sins of the past, in that we are praying and fasting with them. (3) Thereupon they are brought by us to where there is water, and they are born anew (ἀναγεννῶνται) in the same manner in which we ourselves were born anew. For in the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. (4) For Christ also said: ‘If you are not born anew, you will not enter the Kingdom of heaven’. (5) But it is also evident to everyone that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter the wombs of those who have given them birth. (6) And through the prophet Isaiah it was said, as we have written above, in what manner those who have sinned and repent (μετανοοῦντες) may escape (φεύξονται) their sins. (7) This was his rebuke: ‘Be washed, become pure, remove the evil from your souls, learn to do good, give the orphan and the widow their right, and come and let us dispute with one another, says the Lord. And if your sins are as purple, I will make them white as wool. And if they are like scarlet, I shall make them white as snow. (8) And if you do not listen to me, the sword will consume you. For this the mouth of the Lord has spoken.’ (9) And for this we have learnt the following reason from the apostles: (10) At our first birth, we were necessarily born without knowledge, from a moist seed at our parents coming together, and ever 46.  Benoit, Baptème, 140. 47.  Quasten, Patrology, 202-3.

86

Institutions of the Emerging Church since we lived (γεγόναμεν) with bad habits and with an evil upbringing. But in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of unknowing, but (become the children) of choice (προαιρέσεως) and knowledge, and that we may receive the forgiveness of the sins we had committed in the past, there is pronounced in the water over him who has chosen to be born anew and has repented of his sins, the name of the Father and Lord of the universe, in that he who brings to the washing him who is to be washed, names him only in this way. (11) For nobody is allowed to pronounce the name of the ineffable God. But if anyone would dare to speak it, he will be seized by a reckless madness. (12) And this washing is called the illumination, because the mind (διάνοιαν) of those who learn these things is illuminated. (13) The one who is illuminated is also washed in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed all things about Jesus in advance through the prophets.

It is noteworthy how Justin brings out the function of baptism as a rite de passage in several ways: there is a characteristic Before and an equally characteristic After. The sins are typical of the Before (61.2, 6, 10), and the quotation from the book of Isaiah emphasizes that it is necessary to turn away from these. Justin instructs his readers how to understand the prophecy: he takes it for granted that those addressed by the prophet have sinned and that they do now repent; such people will escape their sins by being washed as Isaiah says.48 Repentance (μετάνοια) certainly means repenting of one’s sins, namely those of the past, and turning to God, but in Justin’s writings, the term very often stands precisely for becoming a Christian (e.g. 1 Apol. 28.2; Dial. 40.4; 47.5). In 61.10 Justin develops what the sinful Before was like a little further: humans have come into being through a natural biological course of events and then they live within such limited horizons, ignorant of the truth; this ignorance is visible in a life of ‘bad habits and evil upbringing (ἔθεσι φαύλοις καὶ πονηραῖς ἀνατροφαῖς)’. Thus, as in 61.2, Justin speaks of sin as being due to lacking knowledge. In 14.1b-5 Justin elaborates what he called ‘bad habits’ in 61.10. The context does not mention baptism, but he describes the life of the Before, and contrasts it to the life that Christians live ‘after they have been persuaded by the Logos’ (note the emphasis on ignorance/knowledge again):

48.  In his presentation Justin mixes several concepts: to be made new, to be born again, to be illuminated, and the following themes are connected with them: to repent, to be washed, to be purified, to be forgiven. For a discussion see Benoit, Baptême, 142-78.



Hartman A New Life to Live

87

When we have been persuaded by the Logos, we have withdrawn from them [i.e. the demons] and obey God alone, the unbegotten one, through his son. (2) Before, we took pleasure in fornication, but now we respect only decency; we who practiced magic crafts have dedicated ourselves to the good and unbegotten God. Then, we loved most of all to obtain wealth and property, now we give what we have to the common good and we share it with everyone in need. (3) We hated and killed one another, and we would not even have common hearths with them of other tribes because of their habits, but now, after the manifestation of Christ, we eat together and pray for our enemies and try to persuade those who hate us unjustly that they should live according to the precious counsels of Christ and that they should also, together with us, hold on to the good hope of obtaining from the God who rules over all things the same good things as we have done.

Then, in chs. 15–16, an account of Christ’s teaching on chastity, of love to one’s neighbour etc. follows. This is indirectly a means, not only of describing the high ethical level of Christ’s teaching but also the moral standard of the Christians; thus they are hated unjustly. The vices of the past may remind of the lists of vices we have come across in Titus and Didache, and there may also be some faint echoes of some of the commandments on idolatry, adultery, murder, and theft. Nevertheless, of these the pagan audience may also disapprove and, taking into account that the Apology is written for Roman readers,49 the contrast between magic practice and the personal dedication to the good God is meaningful, since magic was forbidden in Roman law.50 What may seem somewhat surprising, however, is what Justin says on refusing commensality. However, his pagan audience probably shared the widely spread opinion that Jews hated non-Jews and did not share their meals51 – but, Justin seems to intimate, Jews who have converted to Christianity have left this unsocial behaviour behind.52 The picture of the superb ethics inspired by Christ’s moral teaching and practised by the Christians should colour the readers’ understanding of a detail in the rite of baptism. At its beginning, the candidate for baptism namely ‘promises to (be able to) live’ according to what he has learnt (61.2). Justin seems to imply that the baptismal washing does not only

49.  Quasten, Patrology, 197, 199. 50.  H. Le Bonniec, ‘Zauber’, LAW 3, cols. 3305-6. 51.  See e.g. Juvenalis, Satires 14.102-5. 52.  Cf. G. H. Williams, ‘Baptismal Theology and Practice in Rome as Reflected in Justin Martyr’, in The Ecumenical World of Orthodox Civilization: Russia and Orthodoxy, vol. 3, ed. A. Blane (Essays in Honor of G. Florovsky; The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 9-34, here 28.

88

Institutions of the Emerging Church

grant forgiveness for the sins of the past (1 Apol. 61.2, 10; also Dial. 116.2) but also implies that henceforth there will be no sins that need to be forgiven.53 Does this mean that Justin takes the opinion that Christians do not sin? In his thorough study of the baptismal theology of the early Fathers, André Benoit leaves the question open, although he tends to assume that Justin was not actually as strict as he seems to be in these treatises. Benoit rightly points out that their literary purposes are not intended as a report on how Christians deal with their shortcomings – Justin’s aim is to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian religion.54 The morality of the new life is presented as something that the individual has been taught or persuaded to accept, or as something that he or she has chosen to obey (1 Apol. 14.1; 61.2, 10). Actually Justin very often seems to regard ‘believe’ as synonymous with ‘be persuaded’ or ‘be taught’, and we encountered an example of this usage in the passage on baptism as well as in the notice on who may be admitted to Holy Communion (66.1).55 In 1 Apol. 61.10 Justin uses the Stoic term for the decision (προαίρεσις) to take the step into a truly philosophical life.56 Another term, which apparently belongs to the tradition in which Justin stands, and which has a similar ‘intellectual’ shade of meaning, is ‘illumination’, being ‘illuminated’ (φωτισμός, φωτίζεσθαι; 1 Apol. 61.12; 65.1).57 Thus Justin’s rhetorical purposes make him present the Before and the After of baptism very much in terms of morality, and, notably, of a morality that serves as an argument for the excellence of Christianity. In addition, he does so with the slightly noëtic accent of a philosopher of the day. Even so, it is possible to gather a few more aspects of what he thinks the Christian After of baptism implies. The traditional expressions of new birth and being made anew still seem to stand for an essentially new human existence – this is indicated not least by the quotation from Jn 3.3, 5 in 1 Apol. 61.4 and by the contrast between the conditions of the natural birth and the new spiritual birth by baptism (61.10). 53.  Cf. the information concerning about who is permitted to share the eucharist: those who have been ‘washed with the bath of the remission of sins to a new birth and who live as Christ taught’ (1 Apol. 66.1). Dial. 44.4 and 11.4 also seem to presuppose that following baptism those baptized should live without sin. 54.  Benoit, Baptème, 158. 55.  See also, e.g. 1 Apol. 8.2; 10.1, 4; 18.2. 56.  E.g. Epictetus, Diss. 1.25.1: ‘We claim that what is good and bad for a person lies in his decision’. Also 1 Apol. 43.3-8; 2 Apol. 7.3. 57.  See further Benoit, Baptème, 165-70.



Hartman A New Life to Live

89

It is God who, in baptism, grants this new life, through Christ, the Saviour (61.1, 3; also Dial. 138.2). And God is also active when the whole process of conversion, of becoming a Christian, begins: he ‘calls everyone’ (1 Apol. 40.7). To have a close relationship to this ‘Father and Lord of the universe’ means to belong to him and to be liberated from the demons who haunt the pagans (1 Apol. 5; 14.1; 54–55 etc.). So they are sure of turning to the true God in their worship and are not misled to take part in the demonic pseudo-cult (62.1 etc.). The reference to the eucharistic prayer intimates an awareness of being the object of God’s generous deeds: ‘he thanks at great length for our being counted worthy of receiving all these things from him’ (1 Apol. 65.3). Being dedicated to God (1 Apol. 61.1) through baptism means closeness to the divine sphere, which Justin does not seem to deal with in the Apologies. However, in the Dialogue, Justin claims that Christ ‘is always powerfully present’ in the believers (Dial. 54.1). Since Justin has a tendency to identify the Logos and the Spirit, this idea of a divine presence is not so dissimilar to his claim that the Spirit is present and at work in the Christian community.58 Therefore he tells Trypho that people with spiritual gifts exist among the Christians (Dial. 82.1; 88.1) and also that the gifts of the Spirit have been given to all believers (Dial. 87.5), to all the ‘illuminated’ (Dial. 39.2) – note the terminological connection to baptism/illumination.59 The After of baptism also has a social or ecclesial aspect. Thus after baptism, ‘the illuminated one’ is brought to ‘those whom we call the brethren’ (1 Apol. 65.1, 3), and in 1 Apol. 67 Justin describes the Christians’ fellowship with each other, including the fact that after the worship has ended, the deacons bring the eucharistic gifts to the sick. One further aspect of the After of baptism is the eschatological perspective. It is not particularly salient, on the contrary;60 nonetheless there are a few hints at it. Thus it is mentioned in Justin’s report on the prayer at the common worship following baptism: one prays that one may ‘be found having observed what has been prescribed’ ‘in order that we may be saved with the eternal salvation’ (1 Apol. 65.1). In the description of the ‘once – but now’ of 1 Apol. 14, quoted above, the concluding sentence is: ‘we try to persuade those who hate us unjustly that they too should live according to the precious counsels of Christ and also that they, together with us, should hold on to the good hope of obtaining from the God who rules over all things the same good things as we have done’. Justin mentions in passing one such good thing in 1 Apol. 42.3: 58.  See Benoit, Baptème, 172. 59.  Benoit, Baptème, 170-81. 60.  Benoit, Baptème, 157.

90

Institutions of the Emerging Church

the believers can expect immortality (ἀφθαρσία), and his warnings that his audience had better do metanoia before the judgment (1 Apol. 40.7; 68.2) intimate indirectly that the Christians will not be affected by this judgment – they did their metanoia at their baptism. In the Dialogue, this theme can be varied to become exhortations to convert before Christ’s second coming (Dial. 118.1; 124.1; cf. 14.8). 3. Concluding Remarks We have now treated four very different texts from a period of the Early Church that is not often considered in discussions of baptism. Of these, it is only in the Didache that baptism is discussed for its own sake. However, whenever baptism becomes part of the picture in the other three works, it does so, because, it seems, baptism has an irresistable argumentative weight, or, to put it otherwise, it is an undisputable institution, whose fundamental position is self-evident. This position becomes manifest also when we consider how our four texts approach the conditions applicable to the candidates Before and After the baptism. A reader of later periods may reformulate Nicodemus’ question: How can it be that baptism has such powerful effects? Every author will answer in his own way: in the Letter to Titus, God saved ‘us’ through the activity of the Spirit; in John, the human being is born anew through the Spirit that makes Christ’s saving work topical; the Didache is less specific, but it implies that, through baptism, the candidates are sanctified by God; Justin says that in baptism ‘we’ have been made new by Christ and that in baptism God forgives the sins of the past. Thus, each of our four authors assumes, in his own way, that something is performed in baptism and that this is so because God is at work there. This divine activity means putting an end to the God-alienated past of the candidates and introducing a new existence for them, marked by God’s powerful presence. All of our texts deal with this contrast. John does so in non-temporal terms, contrasting flesh with Spirit, the others more or less explicitly oppose a Before to an After. Titus, Didache, and Justin reflect traditional ways of describing the Before by features taken from established polemics against a pagan lifestyle. As a contrast, the existence following baptism is one of good moral standards, and according to the Didache and Justin, one which is inspired by the ethical teaching of Jesus. These descriptions serve different purposes, and for this reason one appears to be stricter or more optimistic than the other. Somebody may find that the morals of Titus represent a well-behaved decency while the Didache represents a high Christ-inspired morale, although put into a pastoral framework



Hartman A New Life to Live

91

designed to help less saintly Christians not to lose hope. Justin, however, seems to present his audience with a Christian morale that is so advanced that any reader with a sensitive conscience may feel tempted to assume that his concept of sin differs from Justin’s, or, perhaps more correctly, that Justin simplifies and paints a too colourful picture because of his rhetorical purposes. Nevertheless, all four of our authors hold the opinion that God’s mighty being with, or even in, the Christian does make all the difference and creates the foundational possibilities for a new morality. Lastly, all of our authors see this new life in an eschatological per­ spective, although in different ways. John does so most openly, and with his own typical slant: the eternal life is already available; whereas the others use more traditional categories. This perspective is the widest frame of the new life given in baptism, because it is the deepest purpose of God’s work with men, focused in baptism.

T he E ucharist

in P aul and in

H ebrews*

Jostein Ådna

1. Introduction While the apostle Paul unequivocally writes about the eucharist, it is disputed whether there actually are any references to this sacrament in the Letter to the Hebrews. However, in spite of Paul’s explicit utterances regarding the eucharist, there has been a lot of discussion among scholars about the precise interpretation of his words, their tradition-historical and religionsgeschichtlich background and the theological significance and social function of the eucharist according to Paul. As far as I can see, the eucharist was celebrated on a frequent and regular basis in the Pauline communities and accorded a clearly sacramental dignity. Such a practice is most likely to have been initiated and established by Paul himself as the founder and teacher of these communities. According to the description given in Acts there is in this regard a correspondence and continuity between the practice of the early community in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 2.42, 46) and the Pauline mission, as exemplified in the episode recorded from Paul’s farewell visit to the community in Troas on his journey to Jerusalem (Acts 20.7, 11).1 Next, the ‘first day of the week’ as the time for the eucharistic celebration in Troas (Acts 20.7) has a correspondence in Paul’s admonition to the recipients of First Corinthians regularly to put aside money for the collection for Jerusalem ‘on the first day of every week’ (1 Cor. 16.2). This might possibly be taken *  This essay was completed in February 2008. I thank John Goldie MA for helpful suggestions for linguistic corrections and improvements. My exchange with the scholarly literature can only be very limited (cf. nn. 23 and 40 regarding important contributions which I have not been able to include). I take this essay as a welcome opportunity to show my deep appreciation for my teacher Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. Peter Stuhlmacher by referring to and quoting from his insightful contributions to our topic. 1.  By using the common terminology of ‘breaking (the) bread’ in both instances Luke demonstrates that he considers the recorded rituals in Jerusalem and Troas to correspond to each other.

94

Institutions of the Emerging Church

as corroborative evidence from Paul’s own hand of regular gatherings as a ‘church’ (ἐκκλησία, 1 Cor. 11.18) with eucharistic celebration, at least on a weekly basis on the day of the Lord’s resurrection (cf. Rev. 1.10).2 Further, given how important Paul considered unity with the community in Jerusalem to be and his high esteem of the unbroken continuity in the transmission and teaching of the gospel in general terms, and with regard to the sacramental act of baptism in particular (cf. Rom. 6.17), it can safely be inferred that the eucharist assumes an important position within his theology and ecclesiological practice. Thanks to Paul’s need to address a number of matters related to the eucharist in 1 Corinthians, we have text passages in this letter that explicitly confirm this. However, I am bold enough to claim that any balanced historical assessment would have concluded that the eucharist was of high ecclesiological and sacramental importance for Paul, even without the malpractices in the Corinthian community which made the apostle respond with extensive expositions on the nature of the eucharist and a ritual practice which reflected the character of the eucharist.3 2. Paul as a Mediator of Jesus’ Own Words In 1 Cor. 11.23-26 Paul quotes a fixed tradition which he himself had officially ‘received’ (παρέλαβον) and handed on to the Corinthians (παρέδωκα ὑμῖν): (23) For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, (24) and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ (25) In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.4

2.  Cf. I. H. Marshall, ‘Lord’s Supper’, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 569-75, here 570. 3.  Hence, I am somewhat more confident than J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 600-601, regarding the possibility of assessing Paul’s theology of the eucharist in spite of the fact that almost all information must be drawn from one of his letters alone. (Cf. the unique Pauline ecclesiological term ‘the body of Christ’ as a reflection of the importance of the eucharist for Paul, discussed below.) 4.  If nothing else is noted, Scripture quotations are taken from the NRSV anglicized edition.



Ådna The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews

95

Both the use of the technical terms for passing on a tradition, παραλαμβάνειν (‘receive’) and παραδιδόναι (‘hand on’),5 as well as the apparent connection to the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels of the deeds and words of Jesus at his last supper with the Twelve (Mt. 26.26-29; Mk 14.22-25; Lk. 22.15-20) clearly demonstrate that Paul relates to the synoptic gospel tradition in these verses. Hence, the first thing to be learnt from Paul’s statements on the eucharist is that he was knowledgeable about the Gospel tradition and that the transmission of words of Jesus and the story about his passion made up a central part of what Paul taught to his communities. As a matter of fact, in spite of being the most conspicuous and most extensive example of the rendering of synoptic Jesus tradition, 1 Cor. 11.23-26 is not unique in this respect within the Pauline letters. Obviously, stories about Jesus and logia he had spoken constituted an important part of Paul’s message to and ‘curriculum’ for the communities he founded, and he taught them in his ‘school’.6 As is evidently the case with the eucharist paradosis, Paul is generally particularly close to the Lukan version of the Jesus tradition. Historically this should not come as any surprise because Luke operated within the same networks as Paul and even belonged to his co-travellers for a long period.7 However, precisely on the basis of Paul’s references to the eucharist one chapter earlier in 1 Corinthians, that is, in 10.16-17, we realize that he also knew and drew on the Markan/Matthaean version of the Last Supper narrative: ‘The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a 5.  See, further, 1 Cor. 11.2 and 15.3. These Greek terms have qibbel and māsar as their Hebrew counterparts, used for the official transmission of traditions in rabbinic Judaism, cf. m. Avot 1.1. For other examples see Str-B III, 444. 6.  I cannot explore any further the extent and form of the synoptic tradition in Paul’s ministry and the traces hereof in his letters here. See D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); E. Weise, ‘Paulus – Apostel Jesu Christi, Lehrer seiner Gemeinden’ (ThD diss., University of Tübingen, 1998); Dunn, Theology, 189-95, and P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1. Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus (3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 299-304. Hence, the exceptional correspondence between a Pauline pericope and text units in the Gospels does not have its origin in a liturgical performance in early communities with unknown background (‘Gemeindebildung’) that was integrated into the narrative scope of the Gospels by the evangelists. 7.  Cf. the so-called ‘we’ passages in Acts 16.10-17; 20.5-15; 21.1-18; 27.1–28.16 and P. Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 190-2. For a detailed treatment cf. C.-J. Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen (WUNT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991).

96

Institutions of the Emerging Church

sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.’ Neither ‘bless’ (εὐλογεῖν), ‘the blood of Christ’ (τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ) nor ‘(the) many’ (οἱ πολλοί) appear in the Lukan/Pauline formula, but have their parallels in Mark and Matthew. Hence, Paul seems to have received not only a proto-Lukan version of the eucharist paradosis, but also to know the Markan version which he interprets and draws ecclesiological inferences from. 3. The Interpretation of the Paradosis in 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 There can be no doubt whatsoever that Paul wholeheartedly accepted and endorsed the theological content of the paradosis that he had received from the Lord and handed on to the Corinthian Christians – like he had done to all the other communities he had founded.8 Two elements in 1 Cor. 11.23b-25, one unique and the other shared with the Lukan version, demonstrate an awareness that the eucharist originated in the Passover meal celebrated by Jesus and the Twelve on the occasion of his last festival trip to Jerusalem. These are on the one hand the phrase ‘on the night when he was betrayed’ (v. 23), and on the other hand the identification of the cup as the one ‘after the meal’ (v. 25, cf. Lk. 22.20), clearly referring to the third of the altogether four cups of wine drunk during the Jewish Passover meal. At the end of the main course, which was the festival dish of the Passover lamb, it was customary for the host to speak the prayer of thanksgiving over this third cup, called the ‘cup of blessing’. Jesus took advantage of this point in the ritual to utter his interpretative words related to the cup, as he had correspondingly done at the point of the prayer of thanksgiving for the unleavened bread at the beginning of the festival meal by speaking the ‘bread saying’.9 8.  The eucharist paradosis undoubtedly belonged to his ‘ways in Christ Jesus’ that he taught ‘in every church’ (1 Cor. 4.17). 9.  That the designation of the third Passover cup as ‘cup of blessing’ is used by Paul for the eucharistic cup in 1 Cor. 10.16 is one more reflection of the sacrament’s origin in the Passover meal. The narrative setting of the Last Supper is clearly that of the Passover meal in the Synoptic Gospels. For a description of this meal within the frame of the Jewish Passover meal, see J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (trans. N. Perrin; Norwich: Fletcher & Son, 1966), 84-8 or P. Stuhlmacher, ‘The New Testament Witness Concerning the Lord’s Supper’, in Jesus of Nazareth – Christ of Faith (trans. S. Schatzmann; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 58-102, here 65-9. To what degree Paul in his exposition shows an awareness of the original Passover context of the eucharist is disputed among scholars.



Ådna The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews

97

However, as already mentioned above, in spite of the clearly reflected origin in Jesus’ last Passover meal, the Lord’s Supper, as Paul labels the sacramental meal (1 Cor. 11.20: κυριακὸν δεῖπνον), had already been separated from the date of the Jewish Passover (14 Nisan) and the ritual order of the Passover meal for a long time. This separation and the frequent celebration of the eucharist on a weekly, or even daily, basis had already begun in the early Christian community in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 2.42, 46).10 a. The Common Elements The acts and words of Jesus regarding the bread and the wine are preserved in all four versions and constitute – together with his eschatologically oriented statement of renunciation, transmitted in the Gospels (cf. Mk 14.25; Mt. 26.29 and Lk. 22.15-16) – their essence. The first preserved element is the recounting that Jesus took a loaf of bread, blessed it, broke it, (gave it to those gathered with him,) and said, ‘(Take;) this is my body’.11 Not contenting himself with a haggadic exposition on the unleavened Passover bread, Jesus takes the opportunity of the blessing of the bread to break and distribute it to all those present at the meal, accompanying this gesture by words in which he identifies the broken bread with his body. The phrase, ‘this is my body’, is identical in all four texts; the Pauline and the Lukan versions add ‘that is (given) for you’, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (διδόμενον). Being commissioned to eat the bread which Jesus has identified himself with, the disciples ‘obtain a share in the substitutionary existence of Jesus, who offers himself vicariously on their behalf’.12 The aspect of Jesus delivering himself for the benefit of his disciples, even to the point of yielding up his life for them, is also clearly 10.  See Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1:207-9. 11.  The words missing in 1 Cor. 11.23-24 are put in parentheses. The simplest and, in my opinion, original form of the bread saying is found in Mk 14.22: λάβετε τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. See J. Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung (WUNT 2/119; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 420-1, and P. Stuhlmacher, ‘Jesus’ Readiness to Suffer and His Understanding of His Death’, in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research, ed. J. D. G. Dunn and S. McKnight (SBTS; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 392-412, here 404-5 (this article is an English version of chapter 10 in Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1:124-47, translated by D. P. Bailey). 12.  Stuhlmacher, ‘New Testament Witness’, 69. Cf. idem, ‘Jesus’ Readiness’, 404: ‘[B]y hearing Jesus’ blessing of the bread and his additional words to them, then taking and eating the bread he broke and distributed to them, the disciples gain a share in him who is about to go to death for them vicariously. The “bread” that Jesus distributes to his table guests is he himself, who gives them new life before God through his sacrificial death and prepares them a place at the heavenly table.’

98

Institutions of the Emerging Church

inherent in the short Markan and Matthaean versions, but the Pauline and Lukan expansions clarify in the sense that they explicitly state this. In the Christological paradosis in 1 Cor. 15.3-5 the sacrificial character of Jesus’ death is expressed by the same preposition as here, ὑπέρ: ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures’ (v. 3b). Being delivered to death because of the sins of the many (διά + accusative, cf. Isa. 53.12 LXX and Rom. 4.25) Jesus atoned for their sins; hence, the beneficiaries of this vicarious death are those for whose sins Jesus died.13 Once again, at the conclusion of the meal Jesus takes the opportunity to relate a ritual element, the ‘cup of blessing’, to himself. He raises the cup, speaks the blessing, adds the ‘cup saying’ and has the Twelve drink from this one cup. Jesus’ words regarding the cup are rendered somewhat differently by Mark and Matthew, on the one hand, and by Luke and Paul, on the other hand. Mark formulates, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’ (Mk 14.24); Matthew has a practically identical text, supplemented by the explanatory addition ‘for forgiveness of sins’ (Mt. 26.28). Paul’s paradosis states, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood’ (1 Cor. 11.25);14 whereas the Lukan text combines the Pauline version and the second element of the Markan version about the blood being poured out ‘for you’ (Lk. 22.20). I assume that Mark has preserved Jesus’ original words in the cup saying.15 Referring to Jesus’ blood being poured out (τὸ αἷμά μου … τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον), this saying clearly anticipates Jesus’ violent death. Further, in the context of the Passover meal the reference to the ‘blood of the covenant’ recalls the scene in Exod. 24 where Moses sprinkled ‘the blood of the covenant’ (v. 8) upon the assembled people in order to seal the Sinaitic covenant. If the words of institution, as rendered in Mk 14.(22,)24, are accepted as authentic, this paradosis transmits the most explicit and extensive statements by Jesus regarding the soteriological significance of his death. The role of his blood, being poured out, must definitely be understood on the background of the Old Testament 13.  In addition to ὑπέρ and διά, also περί (+ genitive) is used (cf. Mt. 26.28; 1 Pet. 3.18). These prepositions are interchangeable. Commenting on ὑπέρ in 1 Cor. 11.24, G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 551, writes: ‘Whenever [Paul] uses this preposition in reference to Christ, it expresses either atonement, his death in “our behalf” (e.g., 15:3; Rom. 5:6, 8), or substitution, his death in “our place” (e.g., Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21). Thus Paul surely understands this bread saying to refer to Jesus’ body as given over in death “in behalf of/in place of” those who are now eating at his Table.’ 14.  In Greek: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι. 15.  Cf. Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel, 420-2 and Stuhlmacher, ‘Jesus’ Readiness’, 405-6, 410.



Ådna The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews

99

atonement tradition.16 The allusion to Exod. 24.8 does not contradict such a derivation. Although the kpr root does not appear in the original Hebrew text, the atoning power of the blood of the covenant is made explicit in the Aramaic Targumic translation: ‘Whereupon Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the altar to atone for the people (lkprʾ ʿl ʿmʾ), and he said, “Here, this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has established with you in accordance with all these words” ’.17 Finally, the shared drinking of all the present disciples from one common cup is a deliberate symbolic act with an eschatological meaning, anticipating the messianic feast on Zion (cf. Isa. 25.6-8) where, according to rabbinic expectations, all of Israel will be given the one ‘cup of salvation’ to drink from (cf. Ps. 116.13). Hence, Jesus’ blessing over the cup, his word of institution, his passing of the one cup around the circle, and the common drinking from it belong together: by hearing Jesus’ word, taking the cup of blessing offered to them as the cup of salvation (Ps 116:13), and drinking together out of it, the Twelve gain a share in Jesus’ blood of the covenant, experiencing the saving power of Jesus’ death that freshly and finally unites them with God. A place is reserved for them at the messianic table, at which they may live in peace with God and their meal companions, singing the thanksgiving song of Isa 26:1ff.18

The reformulation of Jesus’ cup saying in the circles from which Luke and Paul have received their eucharist paradoseis can be characterized as a ‘catechetically motivated explanation’.19 There is no real disagreement between the two versions; the most apparent features of the Pauline tradition are the explicit statement that the covenant to which the cup is 16.  See H. Gese, ‘The Atonement’, in Essays on Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981), 93-116, esp. 106-8; Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel, 387-412, esp. 395-8, and Stuhlmacher, ‘Jesus’ Readiness’, 406-9. 17.  The Targum Onqelos to Exodus (trans. with Apparatus and Notes by B. Gross­ feld; ArBib 7; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 71-2. The Aramaic is taken from A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. 1: The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 130. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan too adds an explicit reference to the atonement in Exod. 24.8: ‘Then Moses took the half of the blood that was in the dashing-basins and dashed (it) against the altar to make atonement for the people; and he said: “Behold, this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” ’ (translation by Michael Maher in the second volume of The Aramaic Bible, published 1994 and comprising the Exodus part of both Targum Neofiti and Tg. Ps.-J.). In both Targumic versions the italics mark the additions to the Masoretic text. 18.  Stuhlmacher, ‘Jesus’ Readiness’, 409-10 (italics in Stuhlmacher). 19.  Stuhlmacher, ‘New Testament Witness’, 75; cf. idem, ‘Jesus’ Readiness’, 410-11.

100

Institutions of the Emerging Church

related is the ‘new covenant’ proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 31.31-34),20 and the avoidance of the potentially inherent misunderstanding of the Markan version as a call to drink Jesus’ blood. Paul’s omission of the explicit statement that Jesus’ blood is ‘poured out for you’ is, of course, not an implicit rejection on his part of the atonement-theological meaning of Jesus’ blood. The applicative phrase ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν has already appeared in the bread saying, and the atoning power of Christ’s blood is stated otherwise by Paul (cf. Rom. 3.25; 5.9; Col. 1.20).21 b. The Particular Emphasis in the Pauline Version Even though the far-reaching agreement between the four versions is the most conspicuous feature of the eucharist paradoseis, the formula transmitted by Paul has some characteristics of its own as well. This applies, first of all, to Jesus’ call to the assembled participants in the meal, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’. This element is completely absent in the Markan and Matthean versions; Luke has it like Paul at the end of the bread saying in identical formulation (Lk. 22.19 = 1 Cor. 11.24: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν), but the Pauline formula alone repeats the call also at the end of the cup saying, ‘Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’. Further, the explanatory elaboration in 1 Cor. 11.26, following immediately after the second anamnēsis call, whether or not being a part of the transmitted formula, is also unique to the Pauline text: ‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’.22 20.  Already in the Isaian ‘apocalypse’ (Isa. 24–27) there is a link made between the meal of the elders before God in Exod. 24.9-11, immediately succeeding the sprinkling of the blood of the covenant, and the end-time table fellowship before God, cf. Isa. 24.23. In the symbolic act of the shared cup and in his reference to the eschatological fulfilment meal (cf. Mk 14.25) Jesus had taken up and confirmed this linkage of the ‘blood of the covenant’ to the eschatological consummation. Although, according to my knowledge, there had not been any explicit coupling of the tradition of the ‘new covenant’ with the motif of the covenant blood and the messianic feast of Isa. 25.6-8 in the earlier tradition, the formulation in Lk. 22.20 and 1 Cor. 11.25 that the covenant, to which Jesus’ blood relates, is the ‘new covenant’ of Jer. 31.31-34 nicely concurs with Jesus’ statement. What is implied regarding the identification of the covenant in Mk 14.23-5, is made explicit in the Lukan and Pauline version of the cup saying. Cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 555, as well. 21.  The understanding of Jesus’ blood as a means of atonement is common to all strata of the New Testament; cf. Eph. 1.7; 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.2, 19; Acts 20.28; Heb. 9.12, 14; 1 Jn 1.7; 5.6-8; Rev. 1.5; 5.9; 7.14; 12.11. 22.  In agreement with Fee, First Corinthians, 555-6, I consider it likely that both the second occurrence of the anamnēsis command and the note in v. 26, combined



Ådna The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews

101

What does the phrase ‘in remembrance of me’ mean? Some scholars, most prominently Hans Lietzmann, have suggested that it reflects a formula belonging to commemorative meals for the dead.23 However, both the obvious background of the Lord’s Supper in a Jewish context, and the fact that it is celebrated not in honour of a ‘dead hero’, because the one to be remembered in this meal is the Risen Lord of those present, are decisive objections to seeing the anamnēsis command in analogy to Hellenistic commemorative meals.24 Turning to biblical and Jewish memorial formulae, the issue of who is asked to remember is raised. In his important monograph The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, Joachim Jeremias strongly advocates a ‘ “Godward” reference, in the sense that God is herewith being petitioned to “remember” Jesus’ atoning death and thus show mercy to his people’.25 Jeremias has hardly found any following; most scholars who support a Jewish background for the anamnēsis command favour a ‘humanward’ point of reference, in which the assembled persons are to ‘remember’ their Lord. Although the occurrence of the formula εἰς τὴν ἀνάμνησιν as well as the occurrences of the noun ἀνάμνησις independent of any formula and

with each other through the ‘as often as’ phrase (ὁσάκις) and the causal conjunction γάρ, are Paul’s additions. If so, we are probably justified in viewing these unique features of his text as highlighting emphases in his eucharist theology. 23.  Marshall, ‘Lord’s Supper’, 570, offers a short overview of ‘Religious Meals in the Ancient World’. (In his monograph Last Supper and Lord’s Supper [Exeter: Paternoster, 1980] Marshall gives a much more detailed treatment both of this and other issues related to the eucharist. Regrettably, it has not been possible to include this monograph in the literature which this essay engages.) An extensive presentation of religious meals in the Graeco-Roman world is offered by H.-J. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korinther­ brief (NTAbh; Münster: Aschendorff, 1982), 31-233; cf., in particular, pp. 76-86 regarding meals in death cults, to which the commemorative meal (‘Gedächtnismahl’) belongs. H. Lietzmann advocated his view both in his commentary on the Corinthian epistles and in the monograph Mass and Lord’s Supper (originally 1926, ET 1979). For a brief presentation of Lietzmann cf. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 238-9. 24.  See the discussion in Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 239-43, leading to the conclusion that ‘it is scarcely conceivable that the command for repetition should be considered as having any connection with the institution of ancient meals for the dead’ (p. 243). Despite the advocacy by Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, 317, of a synthesis of Hellenistic and Jewish influences, I still consider the cited conclusion of Jeremias to be well founded. 25.  The quotation, presenting the view of Jeremias, is taken from Fee, First Corinthians, 552. Jeremias elaborates his understanding in Eucharistic Words, 244-55.

102

Institutions of the Emerging Church

its verbal cognate ἀναμιμνῄσκειν are too limited to draw firm inferences,26 nevertheless, their affiliation to the Hebrew root zkr is unequivocal. In the Old Testament ‘remembrance’ normally includes more than merely the intellectual capacity of keeping something in mind in the sense of not forgetting it.27 That the ‘remembrance’ implies an activity of some kind is most clearly exemplified with regard to the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Integrated into the narrative about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their first Passover (cf. Exod. 12–13) are instructions that the people in future shall ritually mark these events, and, consequently, the regulations for the annual feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread are included in the so-called cultic calendars (cf. Lev. 23.5-8; Num. 28.16-25; Deut. 16.1-8). According to Exod. 12.14 the day of Passover ‘shall be a day of remembrance (lĕzikkārôn) for you. You shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as a perpetual ordinance.’28 The Mishnah tractate Pesahim (10.5) points out how the biblical commandment to ‘remember’ was conceived in later Judaism: ‘In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt, for it is written, And thou shalt tell thy son in that day saying, It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt’.29 Hence, the act of ‘remembering’ while performing the instituted ritual in accordance with the prescribed regulations consists in bridging the time gap between the exodus generation and any later generation that celebrates Passover.30 26.  In the New Testament the formula only occurs in the Lukan and Pauline eucharist paradoseis; the noun ἀνάμνησις is also used in Heb. 10.3 and the cognate verb occurs six times. In the LXX the phrase εἰς ἀνάμνησιν without the definite article occurs four times (Lev. 24.7; Pss. 37.1; 69.1; Wis. 16.6), and, additionally, ἀνάμνησις is used once in a sacrificial context (Num. 10.10). 27.  See H. Eising, ‘zākhar’, TDOT 4:64-82. Regarding the following discussion the part of this article on ‘Cultic Representation of the Past’ (pp. 80-2) is of particular importance. 28.  Regarding the future upholding of the seven days Feast of Unleavened Bread, Exod. 13.8-10 states: ‘(8) You shall tell your child on that day, “It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.” (9) It shall serve for you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder (lĕzikkārôn) on your forehead, so that the teaching of the Lord may be on your lips; for with a strong hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt. (10) You shall keep this ordinance at its proper time from year to year.’ 29.  Quoted from H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 151 (Danby puts scriptural citations in italics, here Exod. 13.8). 30.  This notion is accurately exposed by Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, 316: ‘Das gedenkende Tun holt das Vergangene in die Gegenwart hinein, als heilsames Geschehen, das den Feiernden zugute kommt. Im Judentum fand diese



Ådna The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews

103

Analogously, all believers in Christ gathered for the Lord’s Supper are to regard themselves as participants of the meal during which he identified his body and blood given unto death for their salvation with the bread which they eat and the cup of wine from which they drink in order to get a share in the fruit of his vicarious sacrificial death. The anamnēsis signifies ritual simultaneity; Christ is present as the host at his table (cf. 1 Cor. 10.21) in a way as real as he was present during the meal with the Twelve in Jerusalem on the night he was betrayed. Hence, by celebrating the Lord’s Supper ‘in remembrance of him’ the assembled community re-enacts Jesus’ farewell meal and recalls his death for ‘the many’. As the risen Lord for the new people of God composed of Jews and Gentiles, Christ distributes the bread and wine to those assembled at his table. This opens up a broad salvation-history scope for the phrase “in remembrance of me.” It extends from the exodus event, via the ancients’ experiences on the journey through the wilderness (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-13), to the cross—from Israel’s initial deliverance to the eschatological redemption on Golgotha (cf. Rom 3:24-26).31

In his explanatory elaboration in v. 26, following immediately after the citation of the eucharist formula, Paul states that if the community takes due care of the anamnēsis aspect, then they ‘proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’. This ‘probably does not mean that the meal in itself is the proclamation, but that during the meal there is a verbal proclamation of Christ’s death’, most likely in the form of reciting and interpreting the narrative of Jesus’ passion, be it in a brief form or in an extensive version as later known from the Gospels.32 In the perspective of the anamnēsis the proclamation of Christ’s death means that its soteriological significance is spelled out and applied to those present. Seated at the table of their risen Lord the meal participants thank and praise God with exultation (Acts 2.46) for his wonderful deeds of righteousness in sending his Son as a sin-offering (cf. 2 Cor. 5.21; Rom. 8.3).33 However, their joyous Denkweise in der Paschatheologie ihre besondere Ausprägung (vgl. Ex 12,14; 13,9). Das rettende Eingreifen Gottes beim Auszug aus Ägypten wurde als modellhaft empfunden für sein gegenwärtiges und sein zukünftiges (messianisches) Heilshandeln.’ 31.  Stuhlmacher, ‘New Testament Witness’, 86. See, as well, the more detailed treatment in idem, Biblische Theologie, 1:208-9, 366. 32.  The quotation is from Fee, First Corinthians, 557. See there for a reference to scholars who consider the meal in itself to be the means of the proclamation. 33.  Although the eucharist is rooted in Jesus’ (last) Passover meal with the Twelve, after his resurrection and the renewed meal fellowship between Jesus and the disciples (cf. Lk. 24 and Jn 21) the sacramental meal instituted by Jesus ‘on the night

104

Institutions of the Emerging Church

gratitude for the accomplished salvation thanks to the Lord’s death is to be combined with a sober consciousness that the eschatological fulfilment has not yet been achieved. This is expressed in the qualifying phrase ‘until [the Lord] comes’ (ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ). In conjunction with this phrase in 11.26, the eschatological prayer at the end of 1 Corinthians, preserved in Aramaic (!) – Maranatha, ‘Come, Lord [Jesus]’ (16.22; cf. Rev. 22.20) – most probably ended the eucharistic celebration.34 4. The Ecclesiological Significance of the Eucharist35 Besides his emphasis on the anamnēsis and proclamation of the death of Jesus, Paul’s second particular contribution to the theology of the eucharist is his exposition of its ecclesiological relevance and significance. According to Paul the blessed wine cup and the broken bread are a sharing in the blood and the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10.16), and because the bread of which the participants in the Lord’s Supper partake is one, representing the body of Christ, the guests at the Lord’s table are also one body despite being many individuals (v. 17). The central terms here are, on the one hand, κοινωνία (koinōnia) and its cognates36 and, on the other hand, (τὸ) σῶμα (τοῦ Χριστοῦ), the body (of Christ), as a designation of the church. By means of the spiritual drink and the spiritual food that the community takes, like Israel in the exodus from Egypt (1 Cor 10:3-4), by means of the communal eating of the bread and the communal drinking of “the cup of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:21; 11:28) at the “table of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:21), “the many” for whom Jesus died are united in the community of Jesus Christ, that is, in Paul’s terminology, in the “body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:12ff.; Rom 12:4ff.). All of them share in the vicarious sacrifice of his person (i.e., in his body), in the atoning power when he was betrayed’ gained an additional aspect as a ‘thanksgiving meal’ (tôdâ), as well. Cf. Stuhlmacher, ‘New Testament Witness’, 77-81. 34.  See Stuhlmacher, ‘New Testament Witness’, 85 and 86: ‘The prayer for the eschatological coming of the Lord, which the early community preserved in Aramaic in 1 Corinthians 16:22 (also attested for the Lord’s Supper celebration in Did. 10:6), “Maranatha,” concluded the meal… The remembrance and petition for the exalted Lord to “come” and for his God-given messianic work of salvation to be completed with his return are linked directly with Luke 22:15, 28-30; Mark 14:25; 14:61-62. In the Lord’s Supper the death of Jesus is proclaimed as an event of redemption and promise.’ 35.  Regarding this section cf. Dunn, Theology, 615-20. 36.  See F. Hauck, ‘κοινωνός κτλ’, TDNT 3:797-809 and J. Hainz, ‘κοινωνία κτλ’, EDNT 2:303-5.



Ådna The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews

105

of his death (i.e., in the new covenant opened up by virtue of the atoning effectiveness of the blood of Jesus), and in the Holy Spirit as the presence and mode of operation of the resurrected one (1 Cor 10:3-4; 12:13).37

The ‘body of Christ’ as an ecclesiological term is unique to Paul and is probably drawn from the eucharist.38 Although the ‘body’, with its many members, is a suitable image for expressing the necessity of a harmonious cooperation and interdependence within a human community, and Paul himself applies these implications of the imagery in detail in his exposition of the spiritual gifts and their mutual contribution to building up the church (cf. 1 Cor. 12.14-26 on the background of vv. 4-11), the ‘body of Christ’ is more than a well-functioning metaphor. Actually, it constitutes a pneumatic reality which pre-dates and transcends the joining together of individual believers to more or less harmonious communities, as clearly expressed in 1 Cor. 12.12-13, according to which ‘we were all baptized into one body’ (ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν), that is, into an entity that already existed prior to the establishment of any communities among those who are baptized. The correspondence between baptism and eucharist, made clear from the way both sacraments are related to the ‘body of Christ’ in 1 Cor. 10.16-17 and 12.12-13, is illuminated further if we also take Rom. 6 into account. The statement in 1 Cor. 10.16 that the cup and the bread are koinōnia with Christ’s blood and body clearly has a counterpart in Paul’s exposition of baptism as a sharing in the death of Christ (cf., in particular, vv. 3, 4a, 5a and 8a). Hence, there is a clear parallelism between baptism and eucharist as sacraments with both soteriological and ecclesiological significance in Paul. Baptism applies the soteriological reality of Christ’s death and resurrection to the individual believer (cf. 1 Cor. 15.3-4 with Rom. 6.3-4) and puts him into the ecclesiological realm of Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12.13), and accordingly is a sacramental act which only takes place once, namely at the beginning of the life with Christ. The eucharist, in contrast, is the regular and frequently repeated sacrament that reaffirms and renews the believer’s share in the salvific fruits of Christ’s death as well as his participation in the one ‘body of Christ’.39 37.  Stuhlmacher, ‘New Testament Witness’, 83. 38.  1 Cor. 10.16-17 is the clearest evidence for this derivation. Additionally, also the Adam-Christ typology and the Son of Man tradition seem to have contributed to the tradition-historical background of the body of Christ as an ecclesiological term; cf. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1:357-8. 39.  This is succinctly expressed in Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1:358 and 362-3: ‘Die Kirche als Leib Christi ist also eine pneumatische Realität. Sie ist seit Jesu

106

Institutions of the Emerging Church

The relationship to the one Lord and the participation in his body is absolutely exclusive. Because the eating of sacrificial food makes one a partner (κοινωνός) with the deity, both in the Jewish and the pagan cults (cf. 1 Cor. 10.18, 20), Paul does not tolerate that Christians take part in other religious meals. He does not recognize the pagan gods as divine, of course; as idols they are futile (cf. 1 Cor. 8.4-6; 10.19). However, the consequence is that the pagan worshippers unknowingly sacrifice to demons and become partners with the demons, and for this reason any participation in such sacrificial meals is strictly prohibited for Christians: ‘I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons’ (1 Cor. 10.20b-21). The integrity of the Lord’s Supper is not only threatened by the syncretistic religious practices of some believers, but also by improper meal practices within the Christian community itself. Anything which affects or undermines true unity in the one body of Christ is intolerable. When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he had received information about certain malpractices regarding how they celebrated the eucharist. It would go beyond the scope of this article to engage in the exegetical discussion of the passage 1 Cor. 11.17-34, where Paul reproaches the eucharistic practice of the Corinthians and gives his instructions.40 Without going into any details, for our purpose it suffices to observe that the character of the Lord’s Supper as the most prominent expression of unity in the church is obviously being denigrated in at least two ways in the Corinthian community. First, its members have split into rivaling factions (cf. 1 Cor. 1.10-12), and the divisions (σχίσματα) Tod und Auferweckung bereits vor und unabhängig von den einzelnen Gläubigen da. Kraft der Taufe werden sie in den Leib Christi aufgenommen und in jeder Herrenmahlsfeier ihrer Zugehörigkeit zu ihm neu versichert (1Kor 10,14-17)… Während die (einmalige) Taufe das Datum und Ereignis der Neugeburt aus dem Geist markiert, werden die Glaubenden durch die (wiederholten) Herrenmahlsfeiern im Stand der Gnade erhalten und immer neu zu dem einen Leib Christi verbunden’ (italics in original). 40.  For a reconstruction of the Corinthian meal practice and a correspondingly exact application of Paul’s criticisms and instructions for alterations, cf. inter alia Marshall, ‘Lord’s Supper’, 571-3; Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1:365-9; Dunn, Theology, 609-13, and pertinent commentaries on 1 Corinthians. In addition to Fee, First Corinthians, I think in particular of the extensive commentaries by W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKKNT VII/3; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), R. F. Collins, First Corinthians (SP 7; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999) and A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000).



Ådna The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews

107

among these groups become apparent at the Lord’s table (1 Cor. 11.1819). Second, the celebration of the eucharist is combined with a satiating community meal, but only some of the church members, probably the affluent among them, satisfy their needs while others, probably the slaves and labourers belonging to the community, do not get their share in the meal and are left hungry (vv. 20-21). Paul criticizes those who enjoy their meal without including all church members for humiliating those who have nothing, and he states that by acting in this way they ‘show contempt for the church of God’ (v. 22). Actually, when the ecclesiological community aspect of the eucharist is neglected or even utterly betrayed by the way the meal is organized, their gathering is no more the Lord’s Supper (cf. v. 20), but turns into a meal of judgment for the community (cf. vv. 33-34). Paul firmly exhorts those who mix the satisfaction of their need for food and drink with the Lord’s Supper – even to the point of becoming inebriated – that ‘one must carefully distinguish between the bread to satisfy hunger and the body of the Lord, between table beverage to quench thirst and the cup of salvation’ (cf. vv. 27-29).41 Any malpractice which has as its consequence that unity in the church, the ‘body of Christ’, is not realized among the believers, affects the character of the eucharist. It is no more a sacramental ‘remembrance’ of the Lord, conveying the soteriological fruits of his death, but turns into a meal of impending judgment.42 The consumption of ‘spiritual food’ and ‘spiritual drink’ (1 Cor. 10.3-4) is no guarantee against judgment, but must be matched by adherence to God’s will for his people, as the example of the Israelites in the desert teaches (cf. 1 Cor. 10.1-22). There is a clear interconnection between Paul’s stern warnings and his positive statements on the Lord’s Supper. In accordance with the will of Jesus himself, expressed in the words of institution, the bread and the wine of the eucharist grant a share in salvific fruits of Christ’s death and unite the meal participants in his body. From such a high esteem of the

41.  The quotation is taken from Stuhlmacher, ‘New Testament Witness’, 87. Regarding the judgment (κρίμα, vv. 29 and 34) as the consequence of eating the bread or drinking the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner (ἀναξίως, v. 27), Stuhlmacher adds: ‘The apostle is upset that not a few among the Corinthians eat the bread of life and drink the cup of salvation carelessly, and declares: “that is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged”… Because Jesus is near in the celebration of the meal, it is possible in his presence to obtain not only forgiveness of sins and new life but also death, if one disregards the love of the Lord and his instruction’ (p. 88). 42.  This confirms the ‘humanward’ character of the anamnēsis, discussed above.

108

Institutions of the Emerging Church

eucharist it necessarily follows that any disregard of its soteriological and ecclesiological significance is a very serious and dire matter for those involved. 5. Eucharistic References in the Letter to the Hebrews? There are no explicit references to the eucharist in the Letter to the Hebrews, and there is dispute among scholars as to whether or not it contains some allusions to the sacrament. Ronald Williamson identifies six particular passages that need to be examined in order to resolve this question.43 Another scholar who has written extensively on the issue of the eucharist in Hebrews, James Swetnam, adds even more texts and motives in his analysis.44 Personally, I assume that Heb. 9.20 and 13.9-10 are the most relevant and interesting texts regarding our theme. In 9.18-21 the author draws on the account of the confirmation of the covenant at Sinai in Exod. 24 to explain the role of the blood in Christ’s sacrifice. In v. 20 he quotes Exod. 24.8: ‘This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you’. Interestingly, with the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο as the first word instead of the interjection ἰδού this citation displays a slight derivation from the LXX that might be an adaptation to Jesus’ cup saying in Mk 14.24/Mt. 26.28 and, hence, reflect a subtle allusion to the Last Supper. On the other hand, Christ as mediator of the new covenant is central to the theology of Hebrews (cf. 8.6; 9.15), and long quotations of the promise of a new covenant in Jer. 31.31-4 appear in Heb. 8.8-12 and 10.16-17. This aspect has its counterpart in the version of the cup saying in Lk. 22.20 and 1 Cor. 11.25 with the explicit mentioning of the new covenant in Jesus’ blood. In Hebrews’ exposition of Christ’s sacrificial death the cultic atonement tradition, in particular the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), is even more dominant than the covenant texts and traditions (cf. 9.1–10.18). One characteristic of the Old Testament sin-offerings is that the sacrifices are 43.  R. Williamson, ‘The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, NTS 21 (1974/75): 300-312. The six passages are Heb. 2.14; 6.4-5; 9.1-14; 9.20; 10.19-20 and 13.9-11. Williamson concludes his analysis negatively, stating ‘that there is little or no evidence in Hebrews of involvement, on the part of the author or of the community of Christians to which the epistle was addressed, in Eucharistic faith and practice’ (p. 309). 44.  J. Swetnam, ‘Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, Bib 70 (1989): 74-95. For references to earlier contributions see n. 2 on p. 74. In contrast to Williamson, Swetnam concludes in favour of ‘a Eucharistic interpretation of the epistle’ (p. 93).



Ådna The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews

109

completely consumed by fire and no parts of the animals are eaten by the priests or the congregation (cf. Lev. 4.8-12, 19-21; 16.25, 27).45 However, by combining the Day of Atonement and the covenant traditions in his explanation of what the blood of Christ effects, the author also implicitly evokes the meal of the elders in front of God after the sprinkling of the blood of the covenant (Exod. 24.9-11). As a consequence, the supremacy of Christ’s ministry of atonement compared to the Israelite high priests is not only that he executed it once for all with his own blood (9.12-14, 25-28), but that it also allows those whose sins are atoned for through his sacrifice to share in a sacramental meal. Under due consideration of what the author attempts to achieve among the recipients with his ‘word of exhortation’ (13.22) this is the likely implication of Heb. 13.9-10: ‘(9) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings; for it is well for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by regulations about food, which have not benefited those who observe them. (10) We have an altar from which those who officiate in the tent have no right to eat.’ A competitive and viable Christian alternative was needed in order to convince the recipients, who felt tempted to turn to Jewish cultic practices. When a Christian congregation gathers (cf. 10.25), something happens that surpasses any sacrificial ritual in the temple. In the temple not even the officiating high priest on the Day of Atonement is allowed to eat of the sacrifices (13.11). While the Christians on their part must refrain from participating in any Jewish or pagan cultic meals (13.9),46 they have access to an exclusive altar of their own ‘from which those who officiate in the tent have no right to eat’ (13.10). Unless we are to place the author and the recipients of Hebrews outside all known strands of Early Christianity, reading the letter as an expression of an anti-sacramental position and as an exposition of an extreme spiritualized theology, it seems to me that the most plausible interpretation of Heb. 13.10 is to read this verse as a reference to the Lord’s Supper. In accordance with the anamnēsis aspect emphasized by Paul (cf. above), the fruits of Christ’s completed sacrificial ministry in the heavenly sanctuary are transmitted in an anticipatory way to the wandering people of God whenever they gather for the eucharist.47 45.  There is, however, one exception. If the blood of the sin-offering is not brought into the tent of meeting (Lev. 4.22-35), the priests are allowed to eat of it (Lev. 6.17-23 = ET 6.24-30). 46.  This is the most likely interpretation of Heb. 13.9 if 1 Cor. 10.18-22 is accepted as a relevant reference. 47.  I am indebted to Scandinavian scholars for their contributions: see O. Moe, ‘Das Abendmahl im Hebräerbrief: Zur Auslegung von Hebr. 13,9-16’, ST 4 (1950): 102-8 and S. Ruager, ‘ “Wir haben einen Altar” (Hebr 13,10): Einige Überlegungen

110

Institutions of the Emerging Church

6. Concluding Remarks The eucharist was a strong unifying, ‘ecumenical’ element in the religious practice of early Christian communities. It had its origin in Jesus’ last Passover meal with the Twelve during which he identified the broken bread with his body and the wine in the cup drunk after the main course with his blood, expressed in the ‘bread saying’ and the ‘cup saying’. Further, the eucharist had been prepared and enabled through the meals between the risen Lord and some of his disciples (cf. Lk. 24.29-31; Jn 21). After having experienced the renewed fellowship with their Lord in these meals, the disciples realized that they were invited and commissioned to continue the table fellowship with him, grounded in the Passover farewell meal, but transcending its geographical and temporal limitations. On this background the eucharist became a most central ritual in the early Christian community in Jerusalem, performed on a frequent and regular basis, and as soon as the Christian faith spread outside the holy city and new congregations were founded, the celebration of the eucharist was taken over and continued by the new communities. As the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ (Rom. 11.13), Paul introduced the eucharist in all the congregations which he founded, and he instructed his communities to celebrate this sacrament on a regular basis and in an appropriate way. He obviously regarded Jesus’ words of institution as the central expression of the theological content of the eucharist and quoted them explicitly: ‘This is my body that is for you… This cup is the new covenant in my blood’ (see 1 Cor. 11.24-25). Hence, by eating the bread and drinking from the cup those gathered at ‘the Lord’s table’ for ‘the Lord’s Supper’ (see 1 Cor. 10.21 and 11.20) are graciously taken into the new, eschatological covenant mediated through Jesus’ substitutionary existence and atoning death. By adding the anamnēsis formula, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’, to the words of institution (see 1 Cor. 11.24-25), Paul emphasizes the aspect of ritual simultaneity; whenever the Christian community assembles for the eucharist, the risen Lord himself is present and distributes the bread and wine to the meal participants. The bread and the wine grant a share in the salvific fruits of Jesus’ death and unite the community in the ‘body of zum Thema: Gottesdienst/Abendmahl im Hebräerbrief’, KD 36 (1990): 72-7. I am aware that my interpretation of Heb. 13.10 is now strongly challenged by the major study of G. Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT 2/212; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 445-66, but it is not possible within the limits of this article to analyse his understanding of the cultic theology of Hebrews and discuss its implications regarding the cultic practices of the author and the recipients.



Ådna The Eucharist in Paul and in Hebrews

111

Christ’. It follows from this ecclesiological significance of the eucharist that the believers must avoid anything that threatens the integrity of the sacrament and their exclusive relationship to Christ as their Lord. Hence, as Paul explains in detail in 1 Cor. 10–11, they cannot take part in other religious meals and they must organize the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in such a way that it truly expresses the unity of the whole community. While we with regard to Paul are in the privileged position of having extensive evidence of his eucharist theology thanks to his reactions to the malpractices in Corinth, we are left with only some hints in the case of the Letter to the Hebrews. However, in my opinion, the adaptation of the quotation from Exod. 24.8 to Jesus’ cup saying in Heb. 9.20 and the mention in 13.10 of the altar from which alone the partakers of the new covenant have a right to eat most probably are discreet references to the eucharist. Hence, both Paul, emphasizing the anamnēsis aspect, and the author of Hebrews, describing Christ’s sacrificial ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, have a common concern in spelling out to their communities that the eucharist as the eschatological Lord’s Supper in an anticipatory way grants to the believers table fellowship with their Lord and the salvific fruits of his completed ministry.

The Eu c h a ri s t i n t h e L et te r s of I gnat i us of A n t i och Sven-Olav Back 1. Introduction None of the seven letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, contains a systematic exposition of the eucharist. Other subjects – such as the person of Christ, the unity of the church, the threefold ministry and martyrdom – are in the foreground. Ignatius does refer to the eucharist several times, but, as it were, ‘de manière incidente’.1 Nevertheless, it is clearly important to him: it is ‘the center of worship’.2 On the following few pages I will, as a first step (2), investigate the eucharistic references in the Ignatian corpus, looking at each letter in turn.3 In a second step (3), there then follows an attempt at a synthesis.4 1.  L. de Bellescize, ‘L’Eucharistie chez Ignace d’Antioche et Polycarpe de Smyrne’, NRT 132 (2010): 197-216, here 197. 2.  W. R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 21. Cf. L. Wehr, Arznei der Unsterblichkeit: Die Eucharistie bei Ignatius von Antiochien und im Johannesevangelium (NTAbh 18; Münster: Aschendorff, 1987), 129: Ignatius regards the eucharist as ‘de[r] Brennpunkt aller seiner Forderungen’. 3.  For the sake of convenience, I will begin with Eph. and then turn to Smyrn., Phld., and Rom. The order in which the letters are treated is a matter of no great significance, since they were written within a short span of time and no ‘development of doctrine’ is to be supposed. Cf. J. E. Lawyer, ‘Eucharist and Martyrdom in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch’, ATR 73 (1991): 280-96, here 281: ‘We…see him for perhaps a month, before he vanishes like a latter-day Melchizedek into the mists of antiquity’. 4.  Recent (or relatively recent) studies on the eucharist in Ignatius include Wehr, Arznei; Lawyer, ‘Eucharist’; U. Bleyenberg, ‘ “Im einen Leib seiner Kirche”: zum Verhältnis von Eucharistie und Kirche bei Ignatius von Antiochien’, TTZ 104 (1995): 106-24; E. Mazza, La celebrazione eucaristica: genesi del rito e sviluppo dell’interpreta­zione (Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2003), 101-11; F. C. Klawiter, ‘The Eucharist and Sacramental Realism in the Thought of St. Ignatius of Antioch’, SL 37 (2007): 129-63; de Bellescize, ‘L’Eucharistie’. Some earlier studies are

114

Institutions of the Emerging Church

Addressing the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia and Smyrna (and in addition the bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp) Ignatius wrote ‘to each their own letter’.5 Hence, when reading Ignatius, each letter must be understood in its own right. We should not imagine that Ignatius, writing to, say, the church at Smyrna, presupposed that the addressees had already been studying his other letters and thus were able to read their own letter in the light of passages culled from other parts of the Ignatian corpus.6 This common-sense methodological principle is all the more appropriate in an investigation of a subject which is only sporadically addressed by Ignatius. 2. Analysis a. Letter to the Ephesians It is possible that the Letter to the Ephesians refers to the eucharist right at its beginning. Praising the addressees, Ignatius recalls how they sent a delegation to visit him at Smyrna. By means of this act they performed a task suited to them, and they did so as ‘imitators of God, enkindled by the blood of God’ (Eph. 1.1).7 It is possible that αἷμα θεοῦ here refers to the passion and death of Christ and nothing else,8 but Ignatius is perhaps also thinking of the eucharist as the means whereby the ‘effect’ of the death of Christ reaches the addressees.9 discussed in Wehr, Arznei, 18-23. See also S. M. Gibbard, ‘The Eucharist in the Ignatian Epistles’, StP 8 (1966): 214-18; and R. Johanny, ‘Ignatius of Antioch’, in The Eucharist of the Early Christians, ed. W. Rordorf et al. (trans. M. J. O’Connell; New York: Pueblo, 1978), 48-70. 5.  M. Isacson, To Each Their Own Letter: Structure, Themes, and Rhetorical Strategies in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (ConBNT 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2004). 6.  Cf. Polycarp, Phil. 13 on Polycarp’s collection of Ignatian letters. 7.  As a rule, I follow the English translation in Schoedel, Ignatius – without, however, reproducing Schoedel’s American spelling. 8.  Thus e.g. Wehr, Arznei, 173-4. 9.  H. Paulsen, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna (2nd ed.; HNT 18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 26. See also Schoedel, Ignatius, 42: ‘By the term “blood” Ignatius has in mind the passion (Phd. inscr; Sm. 6.1) and/or the eucharist (Phd. 4)’, and H. Freiherr von Campenhausen, Die Idee des Martyriums in der alten Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936), 75 n. 1: ‘Als Hinweis auf die erlösende und einigende Kraft des wirklich vollzogenen und kultisch übermittelten Leidens Christi ist…die Betonung des Blutes zu verstehen’ (references: Eph. 1.1; Trall. 8.1; Phld. inscr.; Phld. 4; Smyrn. 1.1; 6.1; 12.2). Lawyer sees ‘clear Eucharistic overtones’ in Eph. 1.1 (‘Eucharist’, 282).



Back The Eucharist in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch

115

In Eph. 5, Ignatius explains the unfortunate corollary of being outside the ‘altar room’: the eucharist of the outsiders is a defective, non-real one. This caveat is found within a section (Eph. 2.2­–6.1) where Ignatius insists on the necessity of being subject to the bishop and the presbyters, and of being in harmony with the mind (γνώμη) of the bishop and living in concord (ὁμόνοια) and unity (ἑνότης).10 It is profitable indeed to follow these exhortations, Ignatius declares, for by means of ‘blameless unity’ – which includes subjection to the bishop – the Christians in Ephesus may ‘always participate in God’ (Eph. 4.2). On the other hand, the consequence of disobedience and disunity is severe. Ignatius draws attention to this through the formula μηδεὶς πλανάσθω. Make no mistake, a person who remains outside of the θυσιαστήριον, the ‘altar room’, i.e. the church gathered to worship under the presidency of the bishop,11 is cut off from the real eucharist: ‘he lacks the bread of God’ (Eph. 5.2).12 Ignatius’ statement does not imply that the people outside the θυσιαστή­ριον do not celebrate any eucharist at all. They might very well try to ‘do something that has to do with the church’ (Smyrn. 8.1), such

10.  Isacson, Letter, 39-49. Exhortations to this effect are found repeatedly: 2.2; 4.1, 2; 5.3; 6.1. 11.  Ignatius always seems to use the word θυσιαστήριον in a metaphorical sense. In Magn. 7.2 and Rom. 2.2 the word is to be translated as ‘altar’, in Eph. 5.2 (ἐντὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου), Trall. 7.2 (ἐντὸς/ἐκτὸς θυσιαστηρίου) and – it seems – in Phld. 4 (ἓν θυσιαστήριον) as ‘altar room’. On θυσιαστήριον in Ignatius, see LPGL, 660 (note esp. θυσιαστήριον B.2.d); further H.-J. Klauck, ‘Thysiastērion in Hebr 13,10 und bei Ignatius von Antiochien’, in Klauck, Gemeinde – Amt – Sakrament: Neutestamentliche Perspektiven (Würzburg: Echter, 1989), 359-72; P. Legarth, Guds tempel: Tempelsymbolisme og kristologi hos Ignatius af Antiokia (MVS 3; Århus: Kolon, 1992), 218-77. On the significance of being ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the ‘altar room’ in Eph. 5.2 and Trall. 7.2, see Paulsen, Briefe, 32; Wehr, Arznei, 69-70; Klauck, ‘Thysiastērion’, 365, 369-70; Legarth, Guds tempel, 238-9, 248-50; Isacson, Letter, 45, 116. Refusing to come ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (Eph. 5.3) is equivalent to staying outside the θυσιαστήριον. Within the altar room a powerful prayer is said by the bishop and the whole ἐκκλησία, and the ‘bread of God’ is being distributed (Eph. 5.2). Being ἐκτὸς θυσιαστηρίου is equivalent to ‘doing something’ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου καὶ πρεσβυτερίου καὶ διακόνου (Trall. 7.2). 12.  The expression ὁ ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ probably refers to the eucharistic bread; Wehr, Arznei, 73; Klauck, ‘Thysiastērion’, 365; Legarth, Guds tempel, 233-4 (with references to many other scholars in n. 12). ὁ ἄρτος τοῦ θεοῦ is hardly to be understood according to Jn 6.33-5 but rather as in Jn 6.51 (ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν); cf. Rom. 7.3: ἄρτον θεοῦ θέλω, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ ’Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Cf. below.

116

Institutions of the Emerging Church

as celebrating the eucharist, without the bishop.13 Such a celebration, however, is not the real thing; the outsiders receive nothing but ordinary bread, for the bread of God is only to be found within the altar room. ‘Wer sich für Ign[atius] nicht dort befindet, wo allein das echte Gottesbrot ausgeteilt wird, hat von seiner religiösen Betätigung nichts zu erwarten’.14 Why is it that the bread which is distributed within the θυσιαστήριον is something more than ordinary bread? Ignatius does not clarify this explicitly, which is understandable since the eucharist is not the main theme under discussion; but he does give a hint by mentioning the powerful prayer of the bishop and the whole ἐκκλησία, and by contrasting this with the prayer of one or two people (Eph. 5.2). Here Ignatius is probably referring to Mt. 18.19-20 or a similar tradition.15 Hence, the prayer concerns the presence of Christ within the altar room: if Christ is present among one or two (Matthew: two or three) praying people, how much more within the θυσιαστήριον, where the bishop and the whole church are praying. The prayer in question is probably a eucharistic prayer,16 and ‘the bread of God’ is, as Schoedel puts it, ‘the point of intersection’ between the powerful prayer and the presence of Christ.17 13.  P. Meinhold, Studien zu Ignatius von Antiochien (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1979), 21. On undertaking something ‘without’ the bishop, see Magn. 4.1; 7.1; Trall. 2.2; 7.2; Phld. 7.2; Smyrn. 8.1-2; 9.1; cf. Pol. 5.2. 14.  Paulsen, Briefe, 32. 15.  Schoedel, Ignatius, 55; R. Staats, ‘Die katholische Kirche des Ignatius von Antiochien und das Problem ihrer Normativität im zweiten Jahrhundert’, ZNW 77 (1986): 126-49, here 139; Legarth, Guds tempel, 234-5. 16.  Meinhold, Studien, 21; Staats, ‘Kirche’, 139: ‘Man kann zwar dieser Stelle schlechterdings nicht entnehmen, daß damals schon das Gebet des einzelnen Bischofs eine konsekratorische Kraft gehabt haben sollte, aber der Kontext legt nahe, daß es sich hier um ein vom “Bischof und der ganzen Kirche” gesprochenes Eucharistiegebet handelt’. Cf. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 67.5: ‘and the president (ὁ προεστώς) sends up prayers and thanksgivings in similar fashion, to the best of his ability, and the people give their assent, saying‚ “Amen” ’; for the translation see Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, ed. with a commentary on the text by D. Minns and P. Parvis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 261. Cf. 1 Apol. 65.3. Maybe Ignatius is referring to a similar practice: the bishop prays and the people respond with an ‘Amen’. 17.  Schoedel, Ignatius, 55; V. Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 214: ‘[I]t is his [scil. the bishop’s] prayer along with that of the whole church…which makes it possible for a man to have the bread of God’. Legarth mentions two possibilities as far as the character of the prayer is concerned: either it contains a confession of and a thanksgiving for the eucharistic bread being ‘the bread of God’, or it is thought by Ignatius to cause the eucharistic bread to become ‘the bread of God’ (Guds tempel, 235). Since Ignatius mentions the power of the prayer, the second alternative is certainly preferable.



Back The Eucharist in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch

117

Is Ignatius’ use of the word θυσιαστήριον an indication of the sacrificial character of the eucharist? On one hand, as has been pointed out, the term is used in a figurative way: it often refers to the church gathered to worship – including (or particularly) eucharistic worship – around the bishop. On the other hand: Why would Ignatius use this term about eucharistic worship if he did not view the eucharist as a sacrifice? It seems probable that it was precisely Ignatius’ belief in the sacrificial character of the eucharist that triggered his use of the term θυσιαστήριον.18 The warnings in Eph. 5 concerning a false eucharist receive as it were a positive counterpart in ch. 13, where the healthy effect of celebrating the authentic eucharist is set out. The context is eschatological. Having praised the Ephesians for resisting false teachers, having exhorted them to continue with this resistance (6.2–9.2)19 and having encouraged them to act in an appropriate way toward unbelievers (10.1-3),20 Ignatius turns to another set of exhortations (11.1–15.3),21 taking into consideration that ‘these are the last times’ (11.1). The judgment is drawing near, the divine wrath is coming (11.1), an unquenchable fire will devour God’s enemies (see 16.2). In the meantime, the church is being attacked by evil forces, ‘the powers of Satan’ (13.1). On one hand these powers are demons, on the other hand false teachers (cf. 6.2–9.2) who are corrupting faith in God through their evil teaching (16.2); the demons and the heretics are waging a war against the church. This is a πόλεμος ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων, ‘a warfare of heavenly and earthly beings’ (13.2).22 Cf. the phrases used by Justin Martyr of the eucharistic elements: ὁ εὐχαριστηθεὶς ἄρτος (1 Apol. 65.5), ἡ εὐχαριστηθεῖσα τροφή (1 Apol. 66.2), τὰ εὐχαριστηθέντα (1 Apol. 67.5), and note especially 1 Apol. 66.2: ‘we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized through a word of prayer which comes from him is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh’. 18.  Corwin, St. Ignatius, 171-2; P. Th. Camelot, Ignace d’Antioche, Polycarpe de Smyrne: Lettres. Martyre de Polycarpe. Texte grec, introduction, traduction et notes (SC 10; Paris: Cerf, 1969), 45; Schoedel, Ignatius, 55 (both prayer and the eucharist are seen as sacrifices by Ignatius); Klauck, ‘Thysiastērion’, 368. Cf. Gibbard, ‘Eucharist’, 214, who recognizes that Ignatius by his use of θυσιαστήριον speaks of the eucharist in sacrificial terms, but then hastens to add a qualification: ‘we must note that he also calls his expected place of martyrdom at Rome an altar’ (reference: Rom. 2.2). But there is of course no tension between accepting the sacrificial nature of the eucharist and viewing the martyrdom as another form of sacrifice. 19.  Isacson, Letter, 49-56. 20.  Isacson, Letter, 56-8. 21.  Isacson, Letter, 58-63. 22.  J. A. Fischer, Die apostolischen Väter: Griechisch und Deutsch (Munich: Kösel, 1956), 153 n. 57; Camelot, Ignace, 70; Wehr, Arznei, 88-90.

118

Institutions of the Emerging Church

The most important thing for Christians in this situation is to remain in Christ, ‘to be found in Christ Jesus’, for this brings about true life (11.1). But how does one remain in Christ? Ignatius points to eucharistic worship:23 ‘These are the last times (11.1)… Be eager, then (οὖν), to gather more often to God’s eucharist and to praise (εἰς εὐχαριστίαν θεοῦ καὶ εἰς δόξαν)’ (13.1).24 The inference we may draw from Ignatius’ reasoning is that by participating in this, one can remain in Christ.25 However, this connection between eucharistic worship and the ἐν Χριστῷ ’Ιησοῦ εὑρεθῆναι is only implicit. What Ignatius does say explicitly is the following (13.1-2): the Ephesian church should come together to worship more often, for in coming together the church manifests peace (εἰρήνη) and concord of faith (ἡ ὁμόνοια ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως), and in this way the above-mentioned evil forces attacking the church are destroyed: καθαιροῦνται αἱ δυνάμεις τοῦ σατανᾶ καὶ λύεται ὁ ὄλεθρος αὐτοῦ … πᾶς πόλεμος καταργεῖται ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων. Ignatius here depicts eucharistic worship partly as an anticipation of the eschatological drama, and partly – we may say with an eye on Eph. 19.326 – as an actualization or a 23.  In Christian literature of the second century, εὐχαριστία can, among other things, refer to (a) the eucharistic prayer, (b) the eucharistic elements and (c) the eucharistic celebration as a whole, the ‘eucharist’. For references, see J. Betz, Die Eucharistie in der Zeit der Griechischen Väter. Band I/1: Die Aktualpräsenz der Person und des Heilswerkes Jesu im Abendmahl nach der vorephesinischen griechischen Patristik (Freiburg: Herder, 1955), 157 n. 62; LPGL, 580. There are altogether five instances of the word in the Ignatian corpus, where it may refer to (one of) the eucharistic elements (Smyrn. 7.1; cf. e.g. Did. 9.5; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 66.1) or to the eucharistic celebration (Smyrn. 7.1; 8.1; probably also Phld. 4; cf. e.g. Did. 9.1-2). The latter use is also present in Eph. 13.1 (Betz, Eucharistie, 157 n. 62; Wehr, Arznei, 82); here, εὐχαριστία θεοῦ καὶ δόξα probably refers to worship containing the eucharist and praise of God. In Ignatius, εὐχαριστία does not seem to be used of the eucharistic prayer, nor of ‘thanksgiving’ in a general sense. According to Schoedel, however, εὐχαριστία θεοῦ and δόξα are here ‘terms for prayer to God that is employed at the celebration of the eucharist’ (Ignatius, 74). This interpretation would have been easier to accept had Ignatius written εἰς εὐχαριστίαν καὶ δόξαν θεοῦ. 24.  Here I depart from Schoedel’s translation. For οὖν in 13.1 as a reference to ἔσχατοι καιροί in 11.1, see Isacson, Letter, 58, 61. See also Schoedel, Ignatius, 74: ‘The previous exhortations [scil. 11.1-2a] receive their practical application in a call for frequent meeting for worship [scil. 13.1]’. 25.  Isacson, Letter, 63. 26.  ὅθεν ἐλύετο πᾶσα μαγεία καὶ πᾶς δεσμὸς ἠφανίζετο κακίας· ἄγνοια καθῃρεῖτο, παλαιὰ βασιλεία διεφθείρετο θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου εἰς καινότητα ἀϊδίου ζωῆς· ἀρχὴν δὲ ἐλάμβανεν τὸ παρὰ θεῷ ἀπηρτισμένον. On this text, see Schoedel, Ignatius, 93-4.



Back The Eucharist in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch

119

continuation of the destruction of the evil powers that was set in motion in the incarnation.27 It is true, on one hand, that Ignatius does not connect this outcome to the eucharist as such, but rather to the peace and concord of the church. On the other hand, however, the manifestation of the εἰρήνη and the ὁμόνοια τῆς πίστεως happens precisely through the eucharistic worship in the ‘altar room’ (5.2). Towards the end of the letter (Eph. 20.2) there is the well-known depiction of the eucharistic bread as a ‘medicine of immortality’ (φάρμακον ἀθανασίας). The context is as follows. Having urged the Ephesian church not to be deceived by wrong teaching and false teachers (16.1–17.1), and having indirectly exhorted it to stand firm in the faith (17.2–18.1),28 Ignatius begins an account of God’s divine plan of salvation (his ‘economy’, οἰκονομία), focusing on the incarnation (18.2–19.3). He breaks off at 19.3, but promises to return to the subject in the future (20.1), but only on condition that the church gathers for worship in an appropriate way (20.2). Having described the necessary prerequisites for worship, Ignatius indicates the salvific effects of the eucharist: …ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες, ὅς ἐστιν φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν ’Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ διὰ παντός (20.2). Ignatius here suggests that the addressees already have access to the Heilsgut which is life and immortality. In order not to lose it, they need an ‘antidote’ against death; and this antidote is found in the eucharistic bread.29 27.  Schoedel, Ignatius, 74. 28.  Isacson, Letter, 64-8. 29.  On ἀντίδοτον/antidotum (and φάρμακον) in the literature of Greek, Roman and Christian antiquity, see K. Th. Schäfer, ‘Antidotum’, RAC 1:457-61. ‘In einem ganz speziellen Sinne gebraucht Ign. Eph. 20,2 das Wort, nämlich von dem eucharistischen Brote’ (p. 461). Reading ὅς ἐστιν I follow the editions of Fischer and Camelot; for a defence of this reading, see Wehr, Arznei, 92-4. G. F. Snyder, ‘The Text and Syntax of Ignatius ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 20.2c’, VC 22 (1968): 8-13, and Schoedel (Ignatius, 98) argue for the reading ὅ ἐστιν. Adoption of this reading would not make any difference as far as the antecedent of the relative pronoun is concerned. ὅ would still refer to ἄρτος, and ὅ ἐστιν φάρμακον κτλ. would be but one example of the many cases in Ignatius where the gender of the relative pronoun is attracted to the following noun (here: φάρμακον); ‘[a]ttraction is common…in Ignatius’ (Schoedel, Ignatius, 98, with references). According to Snyder (‘Text’, 10), however, ὅ does not refer to ἄρτος, but ‘to the action ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες’. This interpretation is dubious, first, because the other instances of ὅ allegedly referring to an action (Eph. 17.2; Magn. 7.1; 10.2; Trall. 8.1; 11.2; Snyder, ‘Text’, 9-10) seem farfetched indeed (cf. e.g. Wehr, Arznei, 93 n. 297) and, secondly, because it makes more sense to regard ‘medicine’ as a reference to a substance (‘bread’) rather than as a reference to an action; cf. Wehr, Arznei, 23.

120

Institutions of the Emerging Church

Christ is ‘our inseparable life’ (3.2), ‘true life’ (7.2).30 Through the incarnation, the cross and the resurrection, he has brought this life into the world (7.2; 18.1; 19.3) and bestowed incorruptibility on the church (17.1). Those who are united with him partake of his life. Earlier in the letter (see above), Ignatius implied that the eucharist brings about union with Christ and thus confers ‘the true life’ (11.1; 13.1). This is now made explicit: through the eucharist ‘se communique au chrétien la vie du Christ’,31 or more precisely, the eucharistic bread effects ‘life in Jesus Christ forever’ (20.2). It should be emphasized that this effect is not only connected to the action but to the element of the eucharist, the ‘one bread’. This bread is the ‘medicine of immortality’.32 Ignatius, however, does not refer to just any eucharist. Earlier (see above, on 5.2) he pointed out that there is no real eucharist outside the ‘altar room’. Here, the same point is emphasized by his indicating the prerequisites for the eucharistic celebration: everyone is supposed to take part; nobody should stay away; there must be unity in faith and in confessing Christ as true man (‘son of man’) and Son of God, and it is imperative that the Christians ‘breaking the one bread’ are subjected to the bishop and the presbyters in communion with him. It is only in this context, i.e. within the ‘altar room’ (cf. 5.2), that the eucharist has the aforementioned effects and functions as a ‘medicine of immortality’; otherwise not.33 b. Letter to the Smyrnaeans In the Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius emphatically rejects wandering Docetic preachers who deny Christ’s real presence in the eucharist (Smyrn. 7.1-2). Further, he insists on the need to worship in communion with the bishop, for only in this communion can there be a valid eucharist (8.1-2; 9.1). Ignatius makes these points in the context of the two focal 30.  On ‘life’ in the letters of Ignatius, see S. Zañartu, ‘Les concepts de vie et de mort chez Ignace d’Antioche’, VC 33 (1979): 324-41; Wehr, Arznei, 111-27. 31.  Camelot, Ignace, 46. 32.  Klawiter argues that Ignatius, talking of εἷς ἄρτος, is not referring to the eucharistic bread, but is using ‘an image for the episcopal eucharistic unity of the church’; see Klawiter, ‘Eucharist’, 143. In my view, this interpretation is not only prima facie farfetched, but presupposes that the Ephesian church is aware of Ignatius’ ‘use of plant-food images’ (p. 142) in letters it has not yet seen; cf. Klawiter, ‘Eucharist’, 142-4. In Eph. 5.2, the ‘bread of God’ obviously cannot be an image for the unity of the church; see above. 33.  Wehr, Arznei, 128: ‘Innerhalb der so definierten Versammlung und nur in ihr, in der nun “ein” Brot gebrochen wird, kommt der Eucharistie die oben beschriebene lebensvermittelnde Kraft zu’.



Back The Eucharist in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch

121

themes of the letter: the exhortations to avoid the Docetists (4.1–7.2a) and to follow the bishop (7.2b–9.1).34 According to Ignatius, the eucharistic bread35 is the flesh (σάρξ) of Christ.36 This, however, is denied by the opponents: ‘They do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our saviour Jesus Christ’ (7.1). Ignatius immediately goes on (7.1) to suggest the reason for their denial: a false view of Christ. Since they maintain that he was no σαρκοφόρος (5.2),37 they cannot confess that his σάρξ suffered and was raised, nor that it is present in the eucharistic bread (cf. 7.1). ‘[T]hey would not be willing to identify the eucharist as the flesh of Christ any more than they were willing to accept Christ’s death and resurrection as physical realities’.38 In the eyes of Ignatius, this unwillingness amounts to opposition to the ‘gift of God’, i.e. the flesh of Christ which ‘suffered for our sins’ and is given to the communicants in the form of the eucharistic bread.39 The 34.  Isacson, Letter, 162-73. 35.  In Smyrn. 7.1 the word εὐχαριστία is being used in two different (though related) senses: on one hand, it refers to the eucharistic celebration (εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται), on the other hand, to the eucharistic bread (διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι κτλ.). Cf. n. 23 above. 36.  Corwin, St. Ignatius, 208; Paulsen, Briefe, 96; Schoedel, Ignatius, 240; Wehr, Arznei, 165-6. According to Klawiter, the opponents (in Ignatius’ view) denied that ‘the Eucharistic assembly’ of Polycarp was the flesh of Jesus Christ (‘Eucharist’, 149). This interpretation, Klawiter argues, can be upheld by reading Smyrn. 7.1 ‘in the context of what Ignatius said to the Philadelphians [scil. Phld. 4]’ (‘Eucharist’, 148). Without entering into Klawiter’s exegesis of Phld. 4 at this point, the question is: Why should we imagine that Ignatius assumed that the church in Smyrna had been studying his letter to the Philadelphians? Cf. below, n. 52. 37.  Ignatius refers to the teachings of the opponents in 2.1 (οὐχ ὥσπερ ἄπιστοί τινες λέγουσιν, τὸ δοκεῖν αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι); 4.2 (εἰ γὰρ τὸ δοκεῖν ταῦτα ἐπράχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν κτλ.); 5.1 (ἀρνοῦνται); 5.2 (βλασφημεῖ μὴ ὁμολογῶν αὐτὸν σαρκοφόρον); 6.1 (ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ αἷμα Χριστοῦ); 6.2 (τοὺς ἑτεροδοξοῦντας εἰς τὴν χάριν κτλ.); 7.1 (διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ’Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ). According to Isacson, the opponents were ‘Monophysite’ Docetists, i.e. they held that ‘Jesus and Christ are one person in unity and even Christ was crucified, but since he only was a pneumatic or psychic substance he could not suffer’ (Letter, 161). 38.  Schoedel, Ignatius, 240. Schoedel goes on to comment: ‘For once this does not seem to be a logic imposed by Ignatius on his opponents’. Meinhold, Studien, 31: ‘Hervorgehend aus der doketischen Christologie ist…in Smyrna eine irgendwie symbolische Auffassung des Herrenmahls mit einer realistischen zusammengestoßen’. See also Johanny, ‘Ignatius’, 56-7; Wehr, Arznei, 164. 39.  Paulsen, Briefe, 96: ‘Die δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ist nach dem Zusammenhang die σάρξ Christi, die bei der Eucharistie genossen wird’. Similarly Johanny, ‘Ignatius’, 57-8;

122

Institutions of the Emerging Church

opponents ‘speak against’ this gift, reject it, and this rejection causes their ‘death’ (ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, 7.1), i.e. their loss of salvation.40 Ignatius’ own – albeit indirect, but nonetheless clear – affirmation of the real presence is, then again, tied to his Christology. Earlier in the letter, he strongly emphasizes the σάρξ of Christ, his bodily suffering and resurrection, his being ἐν σαρκί even after the resurrection (Smyrn. 1–3). For him, there is evidently a ‘direct line between the presence of Christ in the bread (and wine) of the eucharist and the resurrected body of Christ’.41 The Docetists in Smyrna probably gathered to celebrate a eucharist of their own.42 It is clear, however, that Ignatius cannot accept the validity of such celebrations. For, as he made clear to the Ephesians, outside the ‘altar room’ there can be no real eucharist, no ‘bread of God’ (Eph. 5.2). In Smyrn. 8.1-2, he shows the other side of the coin: the eucharist43 presided over by the bishop, or by someone authorized by the bishop44 – this, and this only, is βεβαία, i.e. ‘dependable’, ‘valid’.45 According to a number of scholars, Ignatius by using this term refers to the ‘effect’ of the eucharist celebrated by the bishop: it is, in the words of Paulsen, ‘zuverlässig in Wehr, Arznei, 161-2. Schoedel thinks ‘the gift of God’ is ‘ “eternal life” bestowed on the Christian’s flesh especially in the eucharist’ (Ignatius, 241). 40.  Wehr, Arznei, 119-20. Ignatius goes on to say: συνέφερεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀγαπᾶν, ἵνα καὶ ἀναστῶσιν, i.e. the heretics would attain salvation (ἀνιστάναι; cf. e.g. Smyrn. 5.3; 7.2) through ἀγαπᾶν. Since ἀγαπᾶν seems to be a reference to the deeds of love which are implied in Smyrn. 6.2, the statement is surprising in the context. But ἀγαπᾶν probably includes giving up ‘divisions’ (cf. Smyrn. 7.2) and returning to the fellowship of the church, i.e. to the θυσιαστήριον; hence, also to the authentic eucharist. See J. Colson, ‘Agapè chez Saint-Ignace d’Antioche’, StP 3 (1961): 341-53, here 353; W.-D. Hauschild, ‘Agapen. I’, TRE 1:748-53, here 748 (‘’Αγάπη meint bei Ignatius vor allem die Bruderliebe und Eintracht der Christen’); Wehr, Arznei, 163. 41.  Schoedel, Ignatius, 240; de Bellescize, ‘L’Eucharistie’, 198: ‘Ignace tient que le réalisme de l’incarnation et celui de l’eucharistie sont intrinsèquement liés’. 42.  Corwin, St. Ignatius, 214; D. E. Aune, ‘The Phenomenon of Early Christian “Anti-Sacramentalism” ’, in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune (NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 204-7; Meinhold, Studien, 30; Paulsen, Briefe, 96; Schoedel, Ignatius, 240, 243; Wehr, Arznei, 172. 43.  Having in 8.1 referred to the eucharistic celebration with the word εὐχαριστία, Ignatius uses the expression ἀγάπην ποιεῖν in 8.2. The term ἀγάπη (‘agape-meal’) here is probably used of ‘de[r] Gottesdienst, in welchem Sakrament und Sättigungsmahl verbunden sind’; Hauschild, ‘Agapen’, 748. 44.  I.e. probably a presbyter; cf. Magn. 7.1. Cf. Magn. 4 on gatherings without the bishop: τὸ μὴ βεβαίως…συναθροίζεσθαι. 45.  BAGD, 138. Mazza (Celebrazione, 104 n. 13) would prefer to translate βεβαία as ‘sure’ or ‘true’ in the sense of ‘authentic’, but not as ‘valid’ nor ‘legitimate’, ‘because these terms reflect a much later theology of the sacraments’.



Back The Eucharist in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch

123

ihren Wirkungen’.46 It may, however, be wiser to allow for a broader sense of the ‘validity’ here, rather than sharply distinguishing between the essence (cf. the ‘real presence’ emphasized in the context) and the effect of the eucharist. Ignatius does not clearly explain the basis for the validity of the episcop­al eucharist, but in his reasoning in Smyrn. 8.2 he seems to presuppose a thought known from elsewhere in his letters: the earthly bishop is the visible representative of the invisible, heavenly bishop, i.e. God or Christ.47 Since this is so, the local church (τὸ πλῆθος) should follow the bishop in the same way as the church as a whole (ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία) follows Christ. Because the bishop represents God/Christ, everything he does is ‘pleasing’ to God. And since the eucharist, then, is pleasing to God, it is also valid (Smyrn. 8.2). c. Letter to the Philadelphians In the Letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius asks the addressees to shun division and false teaching and avoid people who sustain that kind of evil. Instead, he urges them to hold onto the faith of the church and to preserve its unity (2.1–6.2; 8.2–9.2).48 In order to safeguard unity and avoid schismatics, the Philadelphian Christians are urged to be particularly careful to participate only in one eucharist,49 i.e. the one celebrated by the bishop. Those who behave in this way are in conformity with God’s will (Phld. 4), but those who prefer to act differently are in great peril: ‘If anyone follows a schismatic, he does not inherit the kingdom of God’ (Phld. 3.3). 46.  Paulsen, Briefe, 96; thus also Wehr, Arznei, 172. 47.  According to Mazza, this idea may be termed ‘la concezione sacramentale del ministero’ (Celebrazione, 104-6). ‘The true head of the church is God, and here Ignatius is characteristically unconcerned whether he speaks of the Father or Jesus Christ or both together’ (Corwin, St. Ignatius, 193). Important texts: Magn. 3.1-2; 6.1; Trall. 3.1; Polyc. inscr.; cf. Eph. 5.2; 6.1; Rom. 9.1. Cf. Corwin, St. Ignatius, 193-7; Meinhold, Studien, 59-60. 48.  Isacson, Letter, 130-40, 146-50. 49.  I think that εὐχαριστία in Phld. 4 (σπουδάσατε οὖν μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι) refers to the eucharistic celebration as a whole; thus e.g. LPGL, 580 (εὐχαριστία, B.2.b); Schoedel, Ignatius, 197; Legarth, Guds tempel, 259 with n. 3 on 259-60. According to another interpretation, which I find difficult, εὐχαριστία here refers to the eucharistic elements; thus e.g. Betz, Eucharistie, 157 n. 62; Wehr, Arznei, 146 n. 590; Klauck, ‘Thysiastērion’, 367. The phrase εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι probably describes partaking in the eucharistic celebration. It is true that the verb χρῆσθαι, ‘use’, is employed of the partaking of food in Trall. 6.1 (cf. 1 Tim. 5.23 on the ‘using’ of wine). We cannot, however, take for granted that χρῆσθαι in Phld. 4 describes the same kind of ‘use’ as in Trall. 6.1. The verb can also refer to someone’s taking part in an activity (LSJ, χράω C.II).

124

Institutions of the Emerging Church

Ignatius backs up his insistence on one eucharist with a series of statements introduced by γάρ: ‘for’ there is only one flesh of our Lord, one cup, one θυσιαστήριον, as there is one bishop, etc. (4.1). It is self-evident that there is only one bishop in the local church, and that the presbyters and the deacons are in communion with him. In the same way, Ignatius reasons that there is only one ‘altar room’, i.e. one church gathered to worship together with the one bishop.50 This church cannot be divided. People may leave it, but it is not a question of division (μερισμός) in any real sense; it is rather a ‘filtering out’ (ἀποδιϋλισμός) of strange elements (Phld. 3.1). Those leaving cannot take part of the church with them, but they can repent and return ‘to the unity of the church’ (Phld. 3.2), i.e. to the ἓν θυσιαστήριον where the only real eucharist can be found. Likewise, the flesh of the Lord cannot be divided, nor can the eucharistic cup. For there is μία σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου and ἓν ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ and this one flesh and this one cup are certainly not found among the schismatics51 but are present only inside the ‘one altar room’, where the eucharist is celebrated by the bishop. I take it that Ignatius here, when speaking of the σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου, refers to the flesh of Christ as present in the eucharistic bread (cf. Smyrn. 7.1),52 and that by the phrase ἕνωσις τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ he has the ‘union with his [i.e. Christ’s] blood’ which comes about when the communicant drinks from the eucharistic cup in mind;53 this expression is the Ignatian parallel to Paul’s κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ in 1 Cor. 10.16.54 d. Letter to the Romans In the Letter to the Romans Ignatius passionately articulates his yearning for martyrdom and asks the Roman Christians not to interfere and try to ‘free’ him when he arrives in Rome (Rom. 1–8). By dying as a martyr he 50.  On θυσιαστήριον, see Eph. 5.2 and the discussion above. See further Legarth, Guds tempel, 261. 51.  Cf. again Eph. 5.2. 52.  Johanny, ‘Ignatius’, 53; Mazza, Celebrazione, 108: ‘Ignazio è portatore di un forte realismo sacramentale, identificando il pane eucaristico con la carne di Cristo’. According to Klawiter (‘Eucharist’, 146), μία σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου is ‘an image for the episcopal unity of the church as one body of Christ’, ‘an image symbolizing the unity of Jew and Gentile’. This conclusion seems to rest on an interpretation of a series of passages which the addressees cannot have been aware of. 53.  Regarding the interpretation of ἓν ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ I side, then, with Fischer, Väter, 197 (‘einer der Kelch zur Vereinigung mit seinem Blut’); Klauck, ‘Thysiastērion’, 367-8; Legarth, Guds tempel, 262-4. 54.  Klauck, ‘Thysiastērion’, 367-8.



Back The Eucharist in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch

125

will ‘attain’ (ἐπιτυγχάνειν) God and Christ.55 ‘I seek him who died on our behalf; I want him who arose for our sake’ (Rom. 6.1). ‘Do not prevent me from living, do not want my death, do not give to the world one who wants to be God’s’ (Rom. 6.2). This is the context for the remarks in Rom. 7.3, one of the most tantalizing of Ignatius’ eucharistic texts: οὐχ ἥδομαι τροφῇ φθορᾶς οὐδὲ ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου. ἄρτον θεοῦ θέλω, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ ’Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ, καὶ πόμα θέλω τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος. I take no pleasure in the food of corruption nor yet in the pleasures of this life. I want the bread of God, which is56 the flesh of Jesus Christ, of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love.

In this Ignatius is probably speaking directly of the eucharist celebrated within the church on earth: he wants the eucharist.57 But even if the passage were rather to be understood as a depiction of his coming martyrdom, or the communion with Christ made possible through martyrdom,58 Ignatius’ use of eucharistic terminology nevertheless indirectly reflects his view of the eucharist. Once more (cf. Smyrn. 7.1; Phld. 4.1) Ignatius seems to affirm a ‘realistic’ view of the presence of Christ in the eucharist. A more symmetric way of making his point would have been something like this: τροφὴν θέλω ἄρτον θεοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ Ι.Χ., καὶ πόμα θέλω οἶνον θεοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν αἷμα Ι.Χ.

The rather asymmetric way in which he indicates what he wants is nevertheless clear enough: Ignatius wants the eucharistic bread, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and the eucharistic wine, which is his blood.59 55.  Rom. 1.2; 2.1; 4.1; 5.3; 8.3; 9.2. 56.  The lack of grammatical concord (ὅ agreeing neither with ἄρτος nor with σάρξ) is not unusual in Ignatius’ ‘which is’-expressions; see Schoedel, Ignatius, 98. Cf. e.g. Eph. 17.2: θεοῦ γνῶσιν, ὅ ἐστιν ’Ιησοῦς Χριστός. 57.  Corwin, St. Ignatius, 208; Schoedel, Ignatius, 186; see also von Campenhausen, Idee des Martyriums, 77 n. 1. 58.  Paulsen, Briefe, 77; Wehr, Arznei, 122, 131, 138, 143; Staats, ‘Kirche’, 251; Legarth, Guds tempel, 274. 59.  Corwin, St. Ignatius, 208; Wehr, Arznei, 138, 143; Mazza, Celebrazione, 110.

126

Institutions of the Emerging Church

The main point of the remarks in Rom. 7.3, however, seems to come to the fore at the end: (τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ) ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος. This phrase could be understood in a symbolic or ‘spiritualizing’ sense: τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ is not a reference to the contents of the eucharistic cup, but a figurative way of speaking of ‘incorruptible love’. If this were the case, it would nevertheless not be necessary to read the whole of Rom. 7.3 as symbolic.60 As Corwin pointed out long ago, ‘Any analysis which attempts to answer the question whether he speaks realistically or symbolically is doomed to defeat, for the fact is, he does both’.61 Nonetheless, I prefer not to understand the phrase in question in a symbolic or spiritualizing sense, but rather as a reference to a divine gift mediated through the eucharist. Formally, ὅ ἐστιν κτλ. refers to the cup/blood alone, but Ignatius probably has the eucharist as a whole in mind. Ordinary food is ‘food of corruption’ and of no real value to Ignatius, whose foremost objective is to ‘attain’ God and Christ. But the eucharist has a great value indeed: it conveys ‘incorruptible love’,62 i.e. incorruptibility and eternal life,63 and bestows it on the communicants. It is, in other words, the medicine of immortality (Eph. 20.2).64 60.  And, of course, such an interpretation of Rom. 7.3 should not be used to impose a symbolic interpretation on other passages in Ignatius. The same is true of Trall. 8.1, where the importance of faith and love is underlined in an extraordinary way and ‘identified’ with Christ’s flesh and blood; on this text, see Paulsen, Briefe, 62; Schoedel, Ignatius, 150; Wehr, Arznei, 177. For another striking statement on faith and love, see Eph. 14.1. 61.  Corwin, St. Ignatius, 208. Similarly Camelot, Ignace, 46-7; J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 1; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 168 (cf. 304-5 on both ‘realism’ and ‘symbolism’ in St. Augustine). 62.  Klawiter, ‘Eucharist’, 140: ‘An identity between wine and blood would imply that in partaking of the wine one partakes of Christ’s blood which conveys imperishable agape’. (Klawiter, however, rejects the ‘realistic’ interpretation in favour of a ‘figurative’ one; ‘Eucharist’, 140.) There is possibly a parallel in Phld. inscr. (ἐκκλησίᾳ … ἣν ἀσπάζομαι ἐν αἵματι ’Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶν χαρὰ αἰώνιος καὶ παράμονος), where ἥτις might refer to αἷμα; the gender of the relative pronoun could be attracted to the following χαρά (thus Schoedel, Ignatius, 195 n. 2; cf. p. 98). In that case ἥτις ἐστὶν χαρὰ αἰώνιος would mean ‘which conveys eternal joy’. (However, ἥτις may also refer to ἐκκλησία.) Cf. the Irenaean phrase τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀφθαρσία (Adv. haer. 4.36.7, quoted in Schoedel, Ignatius, 82 n. 12), where ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀφθαρσία spells out the effect of the γνῶσις: ‘the knowledge of the Son of God that effects incorruptibility’ (ibid.). 63.  Colson, ‘Agapè’, 350: ‘l’Agapè incorruptible, autre manière d’exprimer ce que Jean appelait la vie éternelle’. 64.  I reach basically the same conclusion as Wehr (Arznei, 134, 140, 142), even if by a somewhat different path. According to Wehr, ἀγάπη is here to be translated



Back The Eucharist in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch

127

3. Synthesis Ignatius does not elaborate very fully on the eucharist once he sees reason to mention it. Nevertheless, some points in his eucharistic ‘doctrine’, as it surfaces in his letters, may be underlined. They include (1) the altar room as the proper ‘place’ for the celebration of the eucharist, (2) the validity of the eucharist, (3) the real presence, (4) ‘consecration’, (5) the eucharist as a sacrifice and (6) the salvific effects of the eucharist. (1) The celebration of the authentic eucharist takes place within the ‘altar room’, the θυσιαστήριον (e.g. Eph. 5.2; Phld. 4). This term is used metaphorically of the church gathered to worship under the presidency of the bishop. The people in the ‘altar room’ follow the bishop, they obey him and the presbyters who are in communion with him (e.g. Eph. 20.2). They share the same faith and live in peace and concord. There is only one θυσιαστήριον, and people are either within it or outside of it. If individuals or groups of people leave the communion with the bishop and his flock, the church is not thereby divided; rather, those who leave step outside the θυσιαστήριον. (2) The eucharist can only be ‘valid’ (βεβαία) inside the altar room, and when celebrated by the bishop or one of his delegates (Smyrn. 8). The validity is connected to the bishop’s status as a representative of God (and Christ); it concerns both the essence and the effect of the eucharist. Outsiders (heretics and/or schismatics), in contrast, have no valid eucharist; they lack the ‘bread of God’. ‘Wer sich für Ign[atius] nicht dort befindet, wo allein das echte Gottesbrot ausgeteilt wird, hat von seiner religiösen Betätigung nichts zu erwarten’.65 (3) Christ’s presence in the altar room is a real one, i.e. his flesh and blood are present in the eucharistic elements. The life-giving ‘bread of God’ (Eph. 5.2) is the flesh of Jesus Christ and the contents of the chalice is his blood (Smyrn. 7.1; Rom. 7.3). By drinking from the chalice, the faithful are united to Christ’s blood (Phld. 4; cf. 1 Cor. 10.16). This eucharistic realism has a Christological basis. Christ came ‘in the flesh’; he is ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος θεός (Eph. 7.2). He was a ‘bearer of flesh’ (σαρκοφόρος) during his earthly life, he suffered and died as a σαρκοφόρος, his flesh was raised by the Father, and he is still ἐν σαρκί (Smyrn. 1.2; 3.1; 5.2; 7.1). It is for this reason that his flesh can be present in the eucharistic bread. ‘[L]e réalisme de l’incarnation et celui de l’eucharistie sont intrinsèquement liés’.66 ‘Liebesmahl’ (as in Smyrn. 8.2), and ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος refers to both ἄρτον θεοῦ θέλω κτλ. and πόμα θέλω τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ (Arznei, 133-4, 137-40). This is a possible solution, but not, as Wehr argues (Arznei, 134), demanded by any strict parallelism; for the construction of the sentence is relatively careless. 65.  Paulsen, Briefe, 32. 66.  de Bellescize, ‘L’Eucharistie’, 198.

128

Institutions of the Emerging Church

(4) Ignatius does not explicitly indicate how the real presence comes about. Nonetheless, he does mention the powerful prayer of the bishop together with the whole church, and this prayer seems to make the eucharistic bread into something more than ordinary bread: through ‘consecration’, it becomes ‘the bread of God’ (Eph. 5.2). ‘[I]t is his [scil. the bishop’s] prayer along with that of the whole church…which makes it possible for a man to have the bread of God’.67 (5) The eucharist is, in some sense, a sacrifice. This seems clear in view of the term θυσιαστήριον. It is true that the term does not refer to a physical altar; its significance is figurative. Nevertheless, the choice and use of precisely this word for the church gathered around the bishop – and in particular: gathered to eucharistic worship – cannot be coincidental. ‘Der eigentliche theologische Sachgrund…für seinen Umgang mit θυσιαστήριον dürfte darin zu suchen sein, daß Ignatius den Opfercharakter der Eucharistie unterstreichen will’.68 (6) The salvific effects of the eucharist are on one hand connected to the eucharistic celebration as a whole (the ‘action’), on the other hand to the (partaking of the) eucharistic elements. The first aspect comes to the fore in Eph. 13: the evil forces attacking the church are destroyed by the peace and the concord of faith that is manifested when the church comes together in the eucharistic celebration. This destruction began in the incarnation (Eph. 19.3) and is now continued in the eucharist. The second aspect is above all expressed in Eph. 20: the ‘true life’ that was brought into the world through the incarnation, the cross and the resurrection (7.2; 18.1; 19.3) is now conveyed to the communicants in the eucharistic bread which imparts an ‘antidote’ against death and ‘life in Jesus Christ forever’ (20.2). In Eph. 11.1; 13.1, this idea is expressed in an indirect way: through the eucharist, the faithful are ‘found in Christ Jesus’ and are thus partakers of true life. Basically the same thought seems to be articulated in Rom. 7.3, where the eucharist is seen as conveying ‘incorruptible love’, i.e. eternal life.

67.  Corwin, St. Ignatius, 214. 68.  Klauck, ‘Thysiastērion’, 368.

T he P eople

of

G od

Tord Fornberg

During the twentieth century ‘the people of God’ became one of the most frequently used terms to designate the church.1 The most important of the many texts which try to express an ecclesiology that is relevant for our age is Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic constitution on the church, signed on November 21, 1964 by Pope Paul VI and the fathers of the Second Vatican Council.2 But what is meant by ‘the people of God’ is far from clear; it is an ambiguous expression. It can refer to the Israelite people in Old Testament times, the Jewish people all through history and the Christians – all of them or just some of them? – from all around the globe.3 In the Bible several words are used that can be translated as ‘people’, with negative or positive connotations. In the Hebrew Bible we find the two words ʿam, often with the positive meaning ‘God’s chosen people, Israel’, and gôyîm, sometimes but not always used in a negative sense of ‘all other peoples, those outside the covenant between God and Israel’. In the Septuagint and the New Testament we find the corresponding words λαός for ʿam and ἔθνη for gôyîm. The original meaning of the word ʿam was agnatic, then political and ethnic, and it was only later that the different words for ‘people’ became religiously loaded.4 Thus the word ʿam became opposed to gôyîm and λαός to ἔθνη. The concept of ‘God’s people’ is to be understood against the background of a covenant between the God of Israel, YHWH, and the people of Israel. Scholars have often referred to Hittite vassal treaties from as early as 1.  A. Dulles, Models of the Church (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 27, 48-50. 2.  The text is found in English in The Documents of Vatican II, ed. W. Abbott and J. Gallagher (London: Chapman, 1966), 14-96 (especially chapter 2 on pp. 24-37). 3.  H. C. Kee, Who Are the People of God? Early Christian Models of Community (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995) is an important monograph on how the first Christians struggled with the question about the identity of the people of God. 4.  BDAG, 586-7 with references.

130

Institutions of the Emerging Church

the fourteenth century BC as parallels.5 That may be true, but the insurmountable difficulties involved in acquiring firm historical knowledge about the people of Israel before the time of David and Solomon makes it reasonable to look for later texts.6 One such text is the famous Mesha Stele from the ninth century BC,7 where the relationship between the people of Moab and its god Kemosh is described as similar to the one between YHWH and Israel. While the expressions ʿam YHWH and ʿam ʾĕlōhîm are fairly infrequent, the word ʿam often occurs with a personal suffix referring to God.8 Thus the concept of ‘the people of God’ was widely accepted among the Israelites of Old Testament times. And the occurrence of the very expression ʿam YHWH in the so-called Song of Deborah (Judg. 5.11, 13) proves that the idea of ‘the people of God’ goes back to a very early date.9 One may also refer to a biblical text like Exod. 18.11, according to which the Midianite priest, Jethro, said to his son-in-law Moses that ‘the Lord (YHWH) is greater than all gods (ʾĕlōhîm)’. This, of course, is a much later wording put into Jethro’s mouth by the biblical narrator, but it probably reflects correctly what a priest of a neighbouring people might have said at some kind of cultic competition. Another such event, of a much more dramatic character, is the well-known struggle between Baal’s prophets and the prophet Elijah on Mount Carmel, so vividly described in 1 Kings 18. Baal exists, as Elijah at least ironically seemed to presuppose, but Israel’s status as ‘God’s people’ absolutely forbade her to follow Baal, and the uncompromising way in which the great prophet dealt with his adversaries10 (v. 40) adds emphasis to this. 5.  See G. Mendenhall and G. Heiron, ‘Covenant’, ABD 1:1179-202, on the concept of covenant, including its background in the ancient Near East. 6.  The earliest reference to Israel, however, seems to be as early as Merneptah’s Stele from the thirteenth century BC, lines 26-28: ‘Canaan is plundered with every evil; Ashkelon is conquered; Gezer is seized; Yano’am is made non-existent; Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more’; A. Rainey and S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 99-100. 7.  Rainey and Notley, Bridge, 211-12. 8.  See E. Lipiński and W. von Soden, ‘ʿam’, TDOT 11:163-77, here 172 and 176, on these expressions. 9.  For the early date of the Song of Deborah see e.g. A. Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 56-62. Later texts like 1 Sam. 2.24 and 2 Sam. 14.13 also have these expres­sions. 10.  See, however, W. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 211, with the important note that Elijah evidently spared the 400 prophets of Ashera, which might indicate that Ashera, but not Baal, could be worshipped by the Israelites, ‘the people of God’.



Fornberg The People of God

131

Two of the biblical texts that most clearly show the ‘correct’ relationship between YHWH and his people are Ezek. 36.27-28: ‘I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. You shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God’, and Ezek. 37.26-27: ‘I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them…and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’. Ezekiel experienced the Babylonian Exile, and the borderlines between the Israelite people and the neighbouring peoples had now been drawn more strictly. It may not be a coincidence that the fugitives from North Israel in 722 BC disappeared in Assyria, while many of those who were exiled to Babylon a century and a half later kept their faith pure, maybe under the influence of the Josianic reform (2 Kgs 22–23), and at least some of them returned to Judea after 538 BC. Another important text is Gen. 17, where the biblical narrator introduces the idea of a special covenant between God and Abraham. As a consequence the descendants of Abraham are declared to be God’s own people, and as such they became the object of God’s special attention. God promised to give them the Land of Israel (Gen. 12.4-9; 17.8), and they, on their side, were obliged to keep the covenant and its sign, circumcision of all male members of the people (Gen. 17.9-14). Later on the Mosaic Law with its 613 commandments11 (Exod. 20–Deut. 34) was given, introduced by the words ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage’ and immediately followed by the fundamental commandment ‘You shall have no other gods before me’ (Exod. 20.2-3), thus reminding them that, being God’s people, they are totally dependent upon his mercy. But the covenant with Abraham was God’s gift not only to Abraham and his descendants; it soon opened up to the world at large. The covenant included the commandment that Israel should be a light for the ‘peoples’ (gôyîm), as seen in both pre-Exilic texts like Isa. 2.2-5 with its parallel text in Mic. 4:1-5 and post-Exilic texts like Isa. 60.1-3. A quotation of Isa. 2.3 may suffice. Here the gentiles say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths’, and the prophet himself concludes: ‘For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem’. 11.  The number was calculated by Rabbi Simlai of the third century AD, b. Mak. 23b-24a; see e.g. S. Alexander, ‘Jesus and the Golden Rule’, in Hillel and Jesus, ed. J. Charlesworth and L. Johns (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 363-88, here 384.

132

Institutions of the Emerging Church

The responsibility that ‘the people of God’ was given for the whole of humankind was not self-evident to everyone. Even a prophet like Jonah struggled with the question and made a fool of himself when he sat under the burning sun in the Mesopotamian desert. This is seen clearly in the well-known narrative about his dramatic sea voyage and then his successful preaching to the people of Nineveh, much to his own disappointment (the book of Jonah).12 We may also think of the restoration of Judah during the Persian times, probably more or less contemporaneous with the book of Jonah,13 with leaders like Ezra and Nehemiah. Here the borderlines between the people of Israel and the gentiles are clear-cut. This specific and narrow definition of the people of God was strengthened in many circles by the dramatic events of the Seleucid era, but it was probably less relevant for ‘ordinary’ pious Jews as we find them described in Lk. 1–2: Elizabeth and Zechariah, Mary and Joseph, Anna and Simeon, religious people loyal to the covenant between God and his people but at the same time used to a life with gentile neighbours. The gospel author did not hesitate to mention both the ἔθνη and the λαός as recipients of God’s love and mercy. The old Simeon thus says in the temple on Mount Zion: ‘Mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples (λαοί), a light for revelation to the gentiles (ἔθνη), and for glory to thy people (λαός) Israel’ (Lk. 2.31-2).14 This universalistic perspective returns with new force in Acts, where the same Luke describes how the emergent Christian mission spread outside the Jewish synagogues and their communities ­– Acts 13.47 with a quotation from Isa. 49.6: ‘I have set you [Paul and Barnabas] to be a light for the gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth’, and Acts 26.23: ‘He [Christ] would proclaim light both to the people and to the gentiles’. But all through the centuries God’s prophets had complained that the people of Israel had been disobedient to God. Passages like Exod. 32.1-6 about the golden calf, Deut. 28 with blessings and curses that will be leveled at the people dependent upon how they live, Judg. 13.1 et passim

12.  Cf. T. Fornberg, Matteusevangeliet 1:1–13:52 (KNT 1A; Uppsala: EFS-förlaget, 1989), 233-4, on the multifarious uses of ‘the sign of Jonah’ in New Testament times. 13.  The real prophet Jonah (2 Kgs 14.25) lived in North Israel under King Jerobeam II (eighth century BC). 14.  The universalism that is expressed by the old Simeon finds it background in passages like Isa. 42.6, 46.13 and 49.6. See R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (new updated ed.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 451-66.



Fornberg The People of God

133

with general references to the life of the people as well as Ezekiel 16 and Hos. 1–3 with their comparisons between the sinful life of Israel and various kinds of sexual immorality may be mentioned as examples.15 These examples of disobedience against the covenantal law could easily be multiplied, and they necessitate the question concerning whether or not God’s covenant with Israel remains in force regardless of the behaviour of the people. But in a text like Ezek. 36.22-32 the prophet expressed his conviction that God’s promises really remain valid, whatever God’s people is doing: ‘I will vindicate the holiness of my great name…which you have profaned among them [the nations], and the nations (gôyîm) will know that I am the Lord’ (v. 23). The restoration (after the Exile?) of God’s people, now obedient, may include the realization of a new covenant, to be established in what might be described as the eschatological future. The word ‘new’ (Hebrew: ḥādāš, Greek: καινός), however, is ambiguous.16 Does it imply the negation of the first covenant and thus declare it void, or does it rather add to and fulfill this covenant from the childhood of Israel and reinstate the people in its blessings? The message about the new covenant is to be found in texts like Jer. 31.31-34, 32.38-40 and Ezek. 11.14-21. The text from Jer. 31 is probably the most well-known: Days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers…which they broke… I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be may people (ʿam).

Even if the prophets consistently judged the sinfulness of their own people, most of them never lost the hope that one day the people of Israel would be reinstated in glory. This concept of a new covenant is taken up in the eucharistic words in 1 Cor. 11.25: ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’, and slightly later in Lk. 22.20, but not in the possibly more Jewish-coloured versions in Mt. 26 and Mk 14. One may conclude that the gentile Jesus-believers looked upon themselves as members of a new covenant, promised long ago by God through prophets 15.  See e.g. J. Ward, Hosea: A Theological Commentary (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), where Hos. 2 is commented upon under the headline ‘An Allegory of Covenantal History’, 21-46. 16.  The word καινός is discussed in BDAG, 496-7, and in J. Behm, ‘καινός’, TDNT 3:447-54.

134

Institutions of the Emerging Church

like Jeremiah, and not to be confused with the old covenant with the Jewish people.17 But, as has been stated above, the word ‘new’ (καινός) is ambiguous, and it is possible, but not at all necessary, to conclude that the Hellenistic Christians generally looked upon the old covenant as abrogated. Another important text is the parable about the evil workers in the vineyard, to be found in all the three synoptic gospels (Mt. 21.33-45 with parallels). Verse 43, however, is special Matthean material. It reads: ‘The kingdom of God will be taken away from you [the Jewish aristocracy] and given to a nation (ἔθνος) producing the fruits of it’. This passage is striking with its point against the leaders of Israel rather than against the people as a whole. The metaphor of Israel as God’s vineyard is taken from Isa. 5.1-7, but the one important change that has been made is that the criticism expressed by the text is no longer intended for the vineyard, i.e. the people of Israel, but for her leaders. They, especially the Sadducees with Caiaphas’ family in charge of the temple worship, are those who have turned away from God and have led the people astray. And they will even be replaced by gentiles.18 This conclusion is corroborated by the three passion predictions (Mt. 16.21; 17.22-23; 20.18-19 with parallels), of which the first and the third ones unequivocally accuse the Jewish aristocracy, but not the people, of rejecting Jesus. The passion narrative speaks the same language: it was the high priest Caiaphas and his close co-workers, especially his father-in-law Annas (Jn 18.24), who sent Jesus to Pilate for execution on that fateful Friday morning (Mt. 26.3-5 et passim), not the crowd of pilgrims who at most acted as an easily manipulated mob, very much in a way that has happened time and again through history. But already before the gospels had seen the light of the day, what might be called replacement theology had been expressed by the apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 3.13-16: ‘But their [the Israelites’] minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away’. It may very well be that the great apostle in his disappointment for having been rejected by 17.  Cf. Gal. 6.16 where the Christians are called ‘the Israel of God’ in contra­ distinction to the Jewish people, those who preached against Paul (Gal. 1.6-9). For the eucharistic words see U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 4 (EKKNT 1/4; Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002), 93-122. 18.  This may even allude to the far-reaching Hellenization of Caiaphas’ family. The discovery of what might be his family tomb two kilometers south of Jerusalem supports this possibility; an elderly lady in the tomb was buried with Greek coins so she would be able to pay Charon to ferry her across Styx to Hades. See e.g. J. Rousseau and R. Arav, Jesus and His World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 139-42.



Fornberg The People of God

135

a large group in the Jewish community in Corinth expressed himself more harshly than he would have done under other circumstances. Somewhat later the unknown author behind Hebrews quoted Jer. 31.31-34 (Heb. 8.8-12) and then added the comment that ‘[i]n speaking of a new (καινός) covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.’ He went on (in Heb. 10.5-7) to quote Ps. 40.7-9 to emphasize his message that the old covenant is ‘abolished’ and the second one is ‘established’. This denigration of the covenant with Israel was to play an important role in what followed, as is witnessed by an early second-century text like Barn. 4.8, where the author states that the Israelites lost their covenant with God already when they worshipped the golden calf. Texts like these led to a widespread denial of the Jewish component in the early church and then all through history down to our own time. The paradigm of a total separation between church and synagogue19 became a self-evident truth for almost everyone and was widely spread even among ‘critical’ biblical scholars of the last centuries. Especially in Germany20 this neglect lived on, either as a result of a more or less conscious antiSemitism and later on even outspoken Nazism, or as the result of a scholarly based conviction that the Greco-Roman world with its many religions is more relevant for the understanding of the early church.21 Still another reason was the faith conviction that Judaism became irrelevant in the moment when Jesus was rejected.22 But it cannot be denied that God’s covenant with Israel is also said to be eternal. We are told in Gen. 15.18 about a covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants, where they are promised ‘this land, from the 19.  The material proving this case is extremely ‘rich’ and depressing, and there is hardly any need of references. I will only point to one single example, the statues showing the church as a tall and beautiful lady beside the synagogue which is depicted as a broken and defeated woman, often to be found on the facades of medieval cathedrals. The most well-known example may be the cathedral of Strasbourg. J. Charlesworth, ed., Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future (New York: Crossroad, 1990) has good illustrations between pp. 126 and 127. 20.  E.g. A. Gerdmar, ‘Exegesis, Postmodernism, and Auschwitz’, ST 51 (1997): 113-43 on G. Kittel. 21.  The School of Comparative Religion of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was important in this regard. 22.  E.g. M. Noth, Geschichte Israels (3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 386, where it is stated that the history of Israel hastened toward a quick end when the cultic community of Jerusalem had rejected its Messiah because they imagined that they had more important things to do.

136

Institutions of the Emerging Church

river of Egypt [Wadi El Arish] to the great River, the river Euphrates’, and there is no indication whatsoever that the covenant with its promise will be valid only for a limited time. The same can be said about the comparison that is made between Abraham’s descendants and the stars of heaven (Gen. 15.5; 22.17; Deut. 28.62) and the sand on the seashore (Gen. 22.17; Isa. 10.22; Hos. 1.10; Rom. 9.27). While these metaphors primarily carry a universalistic message: God’s covenant with Israel will involve humankind as a whole, they also open up for a temporal understanding: this covenant will turn out to be eternally valid. Later on this covenant with Abraham is explicitly said to be ‘an everlasting covenant’ (Gen. 17.7, 19). The New Testament thus starts out with one eternal covenant and one people of God. Pious Jews like Zechariah and Elizabeth, Mary and Joseph, Simeon and Anna, all of whom are mentioned in Lk. 1–2, are fully integrated in God’s salvation acts, and there is not the slightest hint that their salvation should be jeopardized in any way because their covenant with God would be obsolete. Matthew, writing to Jewish Jesus-believers,23 structured the Sermon on the Mount according to a statement by Simeon the Just24 in m. ʾAbot 1.2: ‘Simeon the Just was of the remnants of the Great Synagogue. He used to say: By three things is the world sustained: by the Law, by the [Temple-]service, and by deeds of loving-kindness.’ The Law is dealt with in Mt. 5.17-48, the [Temple-]service in Mt. 6.1-21 and deeds of lovingkindness finally in Mt. 6.22–7.12.25 This is not strange in any way, since the whole scene with Jesus and the crowd on the mountain is patterned after Moses on Mount Sinai with the people at the foot of the mountain (Exod. 19–20). It may not be a coincidence that the ethical teaching in the Epistle of James shows clear similarities with the Sermon on the Mount.26 The ethical teaching of authors like Matthew and James moved within the perimeters of contemporary Judaism. 23.  T. Fornberg, Det trovärdiga vittnet: en bok om Nya testamentet (Skellefteå: Artos, 2004), 44-52. Cf. Lk. 6.17 where the audience of Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount is not only made up of Jews but also of people from the coastal plain of Tyre and Sidon. 24.  He is probably identical with the High priest Simon who is praised in Sir. 50.1-21. See W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), 304-7, on the hypothesis about the structure of the Sermon on the Mount. 25.  T. Fornberg, ‘Matthew and the School of Shammai: A Study in the Matthean Antitheses’, in Jewish–Christian Dialogue and Biblical Exegesis (SMU 47; Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1988), 11-31. See also Fornberg, Matteusevangeliet 1:1–13:52, 71-2. 26.  F. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief (HTKNT 13/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1964), 47-52.



Fornberg The People of God

137

In the very beginning of his gospel, in the genealogy of Jesus in Mt. 1.1-17, Matthew does not only mention Israelite men. He also mentions four gentile women (self-evidently in addition to the Virgin Mary): Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Uriah’s wife.27 The message is that Jesus is the child of humankind as a whole, not only the promised Messiah of the Jewish people but also the saviour of the gentiles.28 This of course opens up for a people of God that is wider than the Jewish people. Nonetheless Jesus began his ‘career’ as a Jewish preacher of God’s kingdom. It was only when he widened his group of disciples from five to twelve (esp. Lk. 5.1-11, 27-32 and 6.13-16, but also Matthew and Mark) that he broke with the Pharisaic/Rabbinic pattern of a teacher and aimed at establishing the new universalistic Israel, founded upon the twelve apostles, corresponding to the twelve tribes of early Israel, when ‘the people of God’ was less narrowly defined. A Jewish rabbi, at the time of Jesus, was expected to have five disciples.29 This implies that God’s people now should include the gentiles as well. In spite of his overall Jewish character Matthew provides several examples of this broadening: The two pericopes Mt. 8.5-13 (vv. 11-12) on the Roman centurion in Capernaum and 15.21-28 (v. 24) on the Canaanite woman from the district of Tyre and Sidon bring gentiles into the limelight, but admittedly in both cases Matthew’s main point seems to be the great faith shown even by these gentiles rather than their gentile identity as such. But the comparison with Israel is made openly and hints at the widening of the concept of ‘the people of God’ that is evident in Mt. 28.16-20 with the programmatic final declaration that πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Gen. 22.18) shall be made into disciples.30 A similar thrust towards the gentile world is to be seen in Jn 2–5, as those chapters are structured by the final author. After the introduction with the Prologue (vv. 11-12), the witness of John the Baptist and Jesus’ first sign in Cana in Galilee, we find how Jesus relates to the Jews in Jerusalem in Jn 2.13–3.21 (but see 3.16-21 on God’s universal salvation 27.  U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 1–7) (EKKNT 1/1; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 89-97, with different proposals. 28.  Fornberg, Matteusevangeliet 1:1–13:52, 19. 29.  Pope Benedict XVI, May 17, 2006 to a public audience (see www.vatican. va). Cf. b. Sanh. 43a: ‘Our rabbis have taught that Jesus had five disciples: Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah’. See R. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 75-134, here 113-14. 30.  Cf. Mt. 24.14 and 26.13. One may also point to Mt 27.54 about the Roman officer and his (likewise Roman) soldiers who state that Jesus was ‘God’s son’.

138

Institutions of the Emerging Church

will), the half-gentile (?) Samaritan woman in Sychar (Jn 4.3-42), a Roman official in Galilee (Jn 4.46-54; cf. Mt. 8.5-13) and finally a certainly gentile man in an Asclepius shrine in Jerusalem, the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5.1-47). Here we are told how Jesus openly entered a pagan shrine and cured a man, not uttering a single word of criticism against the cult of the place but certainly proving that he is stronger than Asclepius who evidently had not been able to cure him.31 Luke, himself of gentile descent, emphasized more clearly than Matthew the gentiles (as well as women and outcasts) as those who received Jesus and also were received by him. Jesus’ introductory sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk. 4.16-30) quotes Isa. 61.1-2 as a program for the church and goes on to mention some examples of how God had shown mercy towards gentiles already long ago in the history of Israel: the widow in Zarephath in Phoenicia (not the ‘many widows in Israel’) and the leper Naaman from Syria (not the ‘many lepers in Israel’) are brought forward as proofs that God’s true people comprised humanity as a whole (1 Kgs 17.8-16; 2 Kgs 5.8-19). The same point is brought home by those pericopes where Samaritans, being despised by most Jews (cf. Lk. 9.51-56), are highlighted as patterns of life to be imitated by the Jews (Lk. 10.30-37; 17.11-19).32 This tendency to broaden the concept of ‘the people of God’ is still more evident in Acts, written by the same Luke in order to show how faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah spread far beyond the Jewish people. Especially chs. 10–11 play a pivotal role (in particular 10.28, 34-35) when ‘the people of God’ openly is broadened to include all humans. The missionary program in Lk. 24.47 and Acts 1.8 (ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς) finds its fulfillment in Acts 28, where the text tells us not only how Paul preached in Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, and as such representing the whole of humankind, but even how he turned explicitly to the gentiles: The gospel was then offered to humanity as a whole, and, as a consequence, the people of God, regardless how its borders may have been drawn in the past, can now be described as πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. 31.  A. Duprez, Jesus et les Dieux Guérisseurs, à propos de Jean V (Paris: Gabalda, 1970), and T. Fornberg, ‘Betesda och S:ta Anna-kyrkan genom historien’, RelB 62-63 (2003–2004): 38-50. 32.  The parable on the Good Samaritan is even given as an answer to the question of who is my neighbour (Lk. 10.29). B. Gerhardsson, The Good Samaritan – the Good Shepherd? (ConNT 16; Lund: Gleerup; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1958), argues that the text is allegorical and that the Samaritan represents Christ; if so, the importance of the Samaritan is still greater, and all borderlines between ‘the people of God’ and the rest of humankind are superseded.



Fornberg The People of God

139

Paul has often been considered as the real founder of a totally new religion, Christianity, not least by Jewish and liberal Protestant scholars.33 It is more relevant for our purpose to pose the question: Was Paul converted to a new religion on his way to Damascus (Gal. 1.16; 2.7; Acts 9.15; 22.15; 26.17), or was he given a universal task within his ‘old’ faith as a Jew?34 As God’s people, Israel had always been given a universalistic task. We find this task fulfilled when the New Testament tells us how Paul, and other early Christian missionaries of Jewish descent as well, most of them unknown to us, established local churches outside of the communities of the synagogues: There is only one people of God, made up of Jews and gentiles (Gal. 3.28): ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female’. We find that Paul here conceives of a people of God made up of everyone who is prepared to receive the message about Jesus as his or her saviour. In the possibly postPauline letter to the Ephesians the author develops this theme with the help of a number of metaphors, the one about the dividing wall of hostility between Jews and gentiles being the most striking (Eph. 2.11-22). This conviction did not prevent Paul from addressing the Jews first, and only then the gentiles. The reasons were both theological and prag­ matic. Paul could not deny that the Jewish people were the people of God par préférence, and that he more or less had to address his compatriots first. In addition, the synagogues offered him an ideal platform for his message, based as it was on the Old Testament with its Messianic promises, well known by a Jewish audience. The theological point is driven home at the very beginning of Paul’s in-depth argument in his letter to the Jesus-believers in Rome: the gospel is ‘the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first (πρῶτον) and also to the Greek’ (Rom. 1.16-17; cf. 1 Cor. 1.24 where the temporal [?] word ‘first’35 has been left out). Paul’s habit of always addressing the Jews first when he arrived at a new place with a synagogue is confirmed by Luke, who informs his readers of Paul’s activities all over the North Eastern Mediterranean world: Acts 13.14, 16-17, 39 and 46-47 with a quotation of Isa. 49.6 (in 33.  The topic is discussed in D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Especially Jewish and liberal Protestant scholars have looked upon Paul as the founder of a new religion, Christianity. See e.g. an unpublished licentiate thesis by B. Ericsson, ‘Synen på Paulus i modern judendom’ (Uppsala University, 1993). 34.  K. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 7-23. 35.  H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 43-4.

140

Institutions of the Emerging Church

Antioch of Pisidia), 18.6-7 (in Corinth), 19.8-10, 17 (in Ephesus) and 28.23-28 (in Rome). Luke thus presents his readers with the picture of a Paul who consistently gave his Jewish compatriots the chance to receive the gospel of Christ before the gentiles were invited to share in this gift. This consistency on the side of Paul shows that the widening of God’s people did not in any way abrogate the covenant with Israel. In a small but significant book, commenting upon Rom. 9–11, Krister Stendahl tried to penetrate how Paul understood the Christian salvation history as it applies to the Jewish people:36 The eternal covenant reasonably must mean salvation for the Jewish people, but how? I quote: The whole of Israel will be saved. He doesn’t say that Israel will accept Jesus Christ. Since Romans 10:17, or in some manuscripts since 10:9, Paul has not mentioned the name of Jesus or Christ. This is one of the few extended theological arguments Paul carries on in pure God-language, not in Christological language. At the end he writes his only doxology in pure God-language, without a Christological note. He may have done it on purpose.37

Later on Stendahl continues: Instead of speaking about Jesus in Romans 11:26, Paul says something mys­terious – ‘For it is out of Zion that the rescuer will come’. We Christians read that immediately as a reference to Jesus. But it could just as well be read as a Pauline form of the famous statement in the Gospel of John (4:22), when Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, ‘For salvation is from the Jews’… God has the power to realize their salvation, which is definitely not cast in Christological terms.38

In his epistle to the Romans Paul came back time and again to the question of the borderlines of the people of God, and its inclusion even of gentiles (Rom. 3.29-30; 9.25-26). The church is the new universal people of God. Silvanus, the man behind 1 Peter (1 Pet. 5.12) and also a co-worker of Paul, has given us a fundamental description of the church: ‘But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (ἔθνος ἅγιον), God’s own people (λαός)… Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had 36.  K. Stendahl, Final Account: Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 33-44. 37.  Stendahl, Final Account, 38. 38.  Stendahl, Final Account, 39-40. For this important passage see also R. Hvalvik: ‘A “Sonderweg” for Israel: A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11.25-27’, JSNT 38 (1990): 87-107.



Fornberg The People of God

141

not received mercy, but now you have received mercy’ (1 Pet. 2.9-10 with the context in vv. 4-8).39 The Christians are members of a big collective made up of both Jews and gentiles. The Jesus-believers, regardless of their ethnic and religious background, are frequently said to be the people of God, thus e.g. Rom. 9.24-6, Tit. 2.14 and Heb. 8.10. When ‘the people of God’ was widened to include the ἔθνη/gôyîm as well, difficult hermeneutical questions had to be tackled with regard to the understanding of the Jewish Canon. One may say that the Hebrew Scriptures became the Old Testament, old in contradistinction to the recent Christian texts. At the same time the emergent Rabbinic Judaism safeguarded the Jewish faith after the catastrophes of AD 70 and 135 in a way that is reminiscent of the role played by Pharisaism/Esseism after the persecution instigated by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes two centuries earlier or even the role played by Ezra and Nehemiah during the Persian period. The Christian church soon distanced herself from the Old Testament as it was interpreted by the Jews of the first and second centuries AD, but not from the Old Testament itself, which they inherited from Judaism and which proved to be open to more than one interpretation. It was not long until the Jesus-believers saw themselves as a tertium genus, ‘a third race’, neither as Jews nor as gentiles. The emphasis was now put on the church as a new covenant that made the old covenant with Israel void, and the concept of an eternal covenant that was widened to include the gentiles as well receded into the background. Neither the Jews nor the Christians considered the others as part of the people of God. Soon the catastrophic accusation of deicide, ‘the murder of God’, was leveled at the Jewish people, stating that they all, those living then and those of the future, carried personal responsibility for the killing of Jesus. The words that were put into the mouths of a mob outside of Pontius Pilate’s court, ‘Let him be crucified… Let him be crucified… His blood be on us and on our children’ (Mt. 27.22-25) were soon understood as a kind of self-curse, which the Jewish people took upon themselves with open eyes. Such an interpretation was evident already for Melito of Sardes,40 Tertullian and Origen.41 39.  The passage alludes to Exod. 19.5-6, Isa. 43.20-21 and Hos. 2.23. 40.  Melito of Sardes, Passover Homily 96-97: ‘The God has been murdered; the king of Israel has been put to death by an Israelite hand. O unprecedented murder! Unprecedented crime!’ 41.  Origen, Commentary on Matt 27:22-26 (GCS 38, 259-60), translation in T. Fornberg, ‘Anti-Pharisaic Polemic and Jewish–Christian Dialogue’, in Jewish– Christian Dialogue, 32-46, here 32: ‘The blood of Jesus has come not only upon those

142

Institutions of the Emerging Church

The consequence was ‘the fundamental schism’, described by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini42 as far more catastrophic than the two later, main schisms in the history of the church, the one of 1054 that separated the Eastern and Orthodox churches from Western Catholicism and the one of 1517 that led to the creation of a great number of Protestant churches competing with each other in what earlier had been a unified Christianity in Western Europe. A long history of anti-Judaism43 followed in the church, and also outside her. Christian anti-Semitism forgot and even denied everything about love and justice; it also disregarded the fact that Jesus according to normative Christian belief died to atone for the sins of all human beings, Jews and gentiles, men and women, rich and poor (e.g. 2 Cor. 5.18-21). Thus from a theological point of view all human beings, not only Jews, are responsible for the death of Jesus that fateful Friday on the Calvary site just outside the city gate of Jerusalem. The anti-Judaism that became a part of Western society developed in a horrific way and became a racial anti-Semitism, which led all the way to the Shoah. The church never advocated such a racial anti-Semitism, but centuries of anti-Jewish preaching in Europe contributed strongly to it and left traces which for ever will cast its dark shadows over the Christian message of love. There are two legitimate ways to read the Old Testament today, the Jewish way and the Christian way. When past history is taken into consideration, this was stated in astonishingly clear words in a document from the Papal Biblical Commission under the chairmanship of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and published in 2001 under the title The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.44 Here it is said in chapter 22 that there are two legitimate ways to read the Old Testament, the Jewish one and the Christian one as understood by two millennia of Catholic tradition.45 What is striking is, of course, that the Jewish reading then living, but also upon all subsequent generations of Jews until the end. Therefore until now their house has been left to them desolate.’ See D. Judant, Judaisme et christianisme: Dossier patristique (Paris: Cèdre, 1969), 77-96. 42.  Quoted from a lecture by J. Pawlikowski, ‘Reflections on Covenant and Mission’. 43.  See e.g. C. M. Martini, ‘Christianity and Judaism: A Historical and Theological Overview’, in Charlesworth, ed., Jews and Christians, 19-26. 44.  See www.vatican.va. 45.  A passage may be quoted: ‘Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion… Christians can…learn much from Jewish exegesis



Fornberg The People of God

143

of the biblical texts is also said to be a valid one with its emphasis on the Mosaic Law, as it has been interpreted and commented upon in the Mishna and the Talmud and as learned Jewish interpreters like Rashi and Maimonides have understood it. The fact that such a text has been published with a preface by Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the man who became Pope Benedict XVI only four years later, has changed the religious map once and for all. It is here taken for granted that the Jewish people have an eternal covenant with God. They are the people of God, waiting for the Messiah. The Christians are also the people of God, waiting to see Christ return in glory in his parousia; and then, to the great astonishment of many, Christ in his parousia will be the same Messiah as the one eagerly expected by the Jews. Two symbolic events foreshadowed this recent theological development, which has paved the way for a new positive relationship between Jewish and Christian (or at least Catholic) leaders. The first of these events was the brave visit that Elio Toaff, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, made to St. Peter’s Square the night before Pope John XXIII passed away in 1963. He went there to pray for the dying Pope, an act that was unheard of before. The second of these pivotal events was the visit paid to the Synagogue of Rome by Pope John Paul II in 1986, and the widely published embrace between the Pope and the same Elio Toaff, still the Chief Rabbi of Rome.46 The concept of the people of God thus has been widened. This people is made up of all those who live in the covenant between God and Abraham and Moses, and all those who live in the same covenant as it has been brought up to date in Jesus. Maybe it will be possible to broaden the term ‘the people of God’ still more. God has created the world and with it humankind as a whole, and he entered into a covenant with the whole of human race after the Flood (Gen. 9.8-17), when he put the rainbow in the clouds as an eternal sign for every human being to see. This universalistic perspective on the true identity of the people of God comes to the fore in Isa. 19, where the prophet looks forward to ‘that day’ when Israel will be blessed together with its two earlier archenemies Egypt and Assyria: ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage’ (Isa. 19.25). practised for more than two thousand years, and, in fact, they have learned much in the course of history. For their part, it is to be hoped that Jews themselves can derive profit from Christian exegetical research.’ 46.  John Paul II’s speech at his visit to the synagogue of Rome was published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 78 (1986): 1117-23 and in Bulletin 21 (1986): 150-6. Here the Pope refers to the Rabbi’s visit to St. Peter’s Square twenty-three years earlier.

144

Institutions of the Emerging Church

But when the concept is broadened to include every human individual, it may lose much of its concrete meaning. There are many who do not want to be members of a covenant with the one God, who is worshiped by believing Jews and Christians (and Muslims?) alike. And it will certainly take decades or even centuries before the attempt to overcome that first disastrous split and reunite Christians and Jews has become a more or less self-evident part of the faith of all those who today count themselves but not the others as members of ‘the people of God’. In the meantime this very concept will help Jews and Christians to remember that they all are brothers and sisters and that they depend upon each other and upon their one God for their whole existence.

I ndex Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 9.8-17 143 12.4-9 131 15.5 136 15.18 135 17 131 17.7 136 17.8 131 17.9-14 131 17.19 136 22.17 136 22.18 137 Exodus 3.16 58 3.18 58 4.30 58 12–13 102 12.14 102, 103 13.8-10 102 13.8 102 13.9 103 18.11 130 19–20 136 19.5-6 141 20 131 20.2-3 131 24 98, 108 24.8 98, 99, 108, 111 24.9-11 100, 109 32.1-6 132 Leviticus 4.8-12 109 4.19-21 109 4.22-35 109 6.17-23 109

of R eferences

6.24-30 et 109 11.44 84 16 108 16.25 109 16.27 109 23.5-8 102 24.7 102 Numbers 11.30 58 27 60 28.16-25 102 Deuteronomy 16.1-8 102 28 132 28.62 136 34 131 34.9 60 Judges 5.11 130 5.13 130 13.1 132 1 Samuel 2.24 130 2 Samuel 14.13 130 1 Kings 17.8-16 138 18 130 2 Kings 5.8-19 138 14.25 132 22–23 131

1 Chronicles 15.3-5 98 15.3 98 Psalms 37.1 102 40.7-9 135 69.1 102 116.13 99 Isaiah 2.2-5 131 2.3 131 5.1-7 134 10.22 136 19 143 19.25 143 24–27 100 24.23 100 25.6-8 99, 100 42.6 132 43.20-21 141 46.13 132 49.6 132, 139 53.12 lxx 98 60.1-3 131 61.1-2 138 Jeremiah 31 133 31.31-34 100, 108, 133, 135 31.33 33 32.38-40 133 Ezekiel 11.14-21 133 16 133 27.26-27 131 36.22-32 133

146 Ezekiel (cont.) 36.23 133 36.26-27 33 36.28-27 131 Hosea 1–3 133 1.10 136 2 133 2.23 141 Joel 2.28 76 Micah 4.1-5 131 New Testament Matthew 1.1-17 137 5.17-48 136 6.1-21 136 6.22–7.12 136 8.5-13 137, 138 8.11-12 137 10.2 4 15.21-28 137 15.24 137 16.21 134 17.22-23 134 18.19-20 116 20.18-19 134 21.23 59 21.33-45 134 21.43 134 24.14 137 26 133 26.3-5 134 26.13 137 26.26-29 95 26.28 98, 108 26.29 97 27.22-25 141 27.54 137 28.16-20 137

Index of References Mark 3.14 4 6.7 1, 4 6.30 4, 6 8.31 59 9.38-40 1 9.41 1 10.41-45 52 14 133 14.22-25 95 14.22 97, 98 14.23-25 100 14.24 98, 108 14.25 97, 100, 104 14.61-62 104 Luke 1–2 132, 136 1.2 6 2 61 2.32-32 132 4.16-30 138 5.1-11 137 5.27-32 137 6.13-16 137 6.13 4, 6 6.17 136 9.10 6 9.22 59 9.51-56 138 10–11 138 10.16 1 10.28 138 10.29 138 10.30-37 138 10.34-35 138 10.40 52 11.49 6 17.5 6 17.11-19 138 22.14 6 22.15-20 95 22.15-16 97 22.15 104 22.19 100 22.20 96, 98, 100, 108, 133

22.28-30 104 24 103 24.10 6 24.29-31 110 24.47 138 John 1.4-5 77 1.4 80 1.9 77 1.10-11 77, 79 1.12-13 77, 79, 80 1.14 77 1.18 77 2–5 137 2.11-12 137 2.13–3.21 137 2.13-22 78 2.23–3.21 77, 80 2.23-25 77 3.1-21 77 3.1-3 77 3.3 78, 88 3.4-8 77 3.5 78, 88 3.8 79 3.9-21 77 3.15-21 78 3.15 78 3.16-21 137 3.16 78-80 3.18-20 78 3.18 78, 79 3.20-21 79 4.3-42 138 4.22 140 4.46-54 138 5.1-47 138 5.19 77 5.24 80 5.40 80 6.29 79 6.33-35 115 6.44 79 6.51 115 7.53–8.11 69 10.28 79

11.25-26 79 11.25 80 12.32 78 12.34 78 13.1 78 13.16 4 14.6 77 14.9 77 14.10 77 14.12 78 14.24 77 14.28 78 16.23-24 77 17.3 80 18.24 134 20.25 33 20.30-31 79 20.31 80 21 103, 110 21.16 56 Acts 1.2 6 1.8 138 2.18-18 76 2.42 93, 97 2.46 93, 97, 103 6.1-6 52 9.15 139 11.20 7 11.30 8, 59 13.1-4 7 13.1-3 15, 61 13.14 139 13.16-17 139 13.39 139 13.46-47 139 13.47 132 14.4 6-8, 15 14.14 6-8, 15 14.23 8, 40, 59-62 14.26-28 7 15 6-8, 16 15.2 8, 59 15.4 8 15.6 8 15.22 8

Index of References 15.23 8 15.30 8 15.41 8 16 49, 54 16.4 8 16.10-17 95 17.30 74 18.6-7 140 18.7 54 19.8-10 140 19.17 140 20 59 20.5-15 95 20.7 93 20.11 93 20.28 59, 100 20.29-30 56 20.32 33 21.1-18 95 21.8 57 21.9 46 21.18 8, 59 22.15 8, 139 22.21 6, 9 26.16 8 26.17 6, 9, 139 27.1–28.16 95 28 138 28.23-28 140 Romans 1 22 1.1-5 22 1.1 10, 12 1.5 10 1.7 11 1.8 37 1.12 37 1.16-17 139 1.21-32 74 1.24 32 1.26 32 1.27 32 2.2 38 2.26 20 3.5 10 3.8-9 10

147 3.12 35 3.19 10, 38 3.24-26 103 3.25 100 3.29-30 140 4.24 10 4.25 98 5.1-11 10 5.5 76 5.6 98 5.8 98 5.9 100 5.14 34 6 34, 38, 105 6.1-4 71 6.1-2 10 6.3 38 6.6 38 6.9 38 6.16-21 74 6.16 37 6.17-20 37 6.17 31, 33, 34, 37, 94 6.19 37 7.1 38 7.6 33 7.14 38 8.3 103 8.7 69 8.20 69 8.22 38 8.28 38 9–11 140 9.24-26 141 9.25-26 140 9.27 136 10.3 69 10.16 34 10.17 140 11.2 38 11.13 10, 52, 110 11.26 140 12.3-8 53 12.4-8 45 12.4 104 12.5 53

148 Romans (cont.) 12.6-8 53 12.7 52 12.8 43 13.1 69 13.4 52 13.5 69 13.13 26 14–15 36 14.1–15.13 36 14.15 26 15.8 52 15.20-21 13 16 53 16.1-2 52-4, 61 16.1 51 16.6 43 16.7 10 16.12 43 16.14.6 36 16.16 35 16.17-20 35, 36 16.17 31, 35 16.18 36 16.19 36 16.20 36 16.21-23 10, 35 16.23 54 1 Corinthians 1.1 12, 22, 41 1.3 11 1.10-12 106 1.11 45 1.12 30 1.14 54, 55 1.16 44 1.24 139 2.15 27 3.5 52 3.10-16 14, 44, 64 4 24 4.9 12 4.14-21 43 4.16-17 24 4.17 37, 96 5–6 43 5.1-5 44

Index of References 5.3-5 27 5.5 32 5.9-11 72 7.6 23 7.10 24, 30 7.16 24 7.17 23, 24, 26, 29 7.25 23 8.1–11.1 43 8.4-6 106 9 22 9.1-2 12 9.1 9, 12 9.2 12 9.3-18 23 9.4-6 22 9.5 12 9.8 69 9.14 30 9.18 22 10–11 111 10.1-22 107 10.1-13 103 10.3-4 104, 105, 107 10.3 105 10.4 105 10.5 105 10.6 34 10.8 105 10.14-17 106 10.16-17 95, 105 10.16 96, 104, 105, 124 10.17 104 10.18-22 109 10.18 106 10.19 106 10.20-21 106 10.20 106 10.21 103, 104, 110 10.27 107 10.29 107 10.34 107 11–14 49, 70

11

29, 47, 48, 59 11.2–14.40 43 11.2-16 46, 64, 69, 70 11.2 26, 32, 95 11.6 39, 69 11.16 26, 29, 49 11.17-34 106 11.17 24 11.18-19 107 11.18 94 11.20-21 107 11.20 97, 107, 110 11.22 107 11.23-26 94-6 11.23-25 96 11.23-24 97 11.23 28, 29, 32, 96 11.24-25 110 11.24 98, 100 11.25 96, 98, 100, 108, 133 11.26 100, 103, 104 11.27-29 107 11.28 104 11.33-34 107 11.34 23 12–14 48 12 43, 64 12.4-11 105 12.5 52 12.8-10 45 12.12-13 105 12.12 104 12.13 105 12.14-26 105 12.28-31 45 12.28-29 46 12.28 12, 15, 44, 46, 56 12.29 12 13.2 45 13.3 32 14 47, 48, 59 14.6 45

14.20 36 14.24-25 45 14.26-40 44, 46, 67, 70 14.27-28 70 14.29-33 70 14.29 46, 70 14.32 69 14.33-38 68 14.33-36 64, 67, 68, 70 14.33-34 29 14.33 70 14.34-35 47, 67-70 14.34 49 14.35 69 14.37 30, 48 14.40 68 15 29, 30, 43 15.1-3 25 15.1 28 15.3-5 30 15.3-4 105 15.3 29, 32, 95, 98 15.5 5, 9 15.7 3, 9, 12 15.8-9 9 15.8 12 15.9 12 15.11 30, 38 15.12 31 15.24-27 36 15.24 32 15.27 69 16.1 23 16.2 93 16.7 69 16.10-11 43 16.15-18 45, 64 16.15 52 16.16 69 16.22 36, 104 2 Corinthians 1.1 12, 22, 41 1.2 11 3.3 33 3.13-16 134 5.18-21 142 5.21 98, 103

149

Index of References 8.8 23 8.23 4, 12 9.13 34 10–13 22 10.8 22 10.13-16 12 11.4 34 11.5 12 11.13 12 12.1-10 45 12.11 12 12.12 12 13.3 41 13.10 22 Galatians 1–2 22 1.1 9, 11, 12, 22 1.2 11 1.6-9 34, 36, 134 1.8-9 36 1.8 25 1.9 25 1.11-12 26 1.15-16 12 1.16 139 1.17–2.14 11 1.17 3, 9 1.18-19 28 1.19 9 2.1-11 11 2.1-10 38 2.1 11 2.7 139 2.8 38 2.9 2, 11 2.10 11 2.13 11 2.22 11 2.25 11 3.13 98 3.28 139 4.8-10 72 5.16 26 6.12-17 36 6.13 20 6.16-17 36 6.16 134

Ephesians 1.1 14 1.7 100 2.1-22 72 2.11-22 139 2.13 100 2.20 14, 15 3.1 14 3.5 14, 15 4.1 14, 26 4.11-13 55 4.11 14, 15, 56, 57 4.18 74 5.2 26 5.8 26 Philippians 1.1 41, 49, 52, 54, 59, 64, 66 1.2 11 2.25 4 3.17 26, 34 3.18-19 36 3.21 69 4.9 24, 25 Colossians 1.1 42 1.7 60 1.10 26 1.20 100 1.21-22 72 1.23 60 1.25 60 1.26 15 2.6 26 3.7-8 72 4.7 60 4.15 55 4.17 60 1 Thessalonians 1.1 11, 42 1.7 34 2.7 10, 22 2.12 26

150 1 Thessalonians (cont.) 2.18 10 3.1-10 41 3.5 10 4.1-2 29 4.1 26 4.2 24 4.11 24 5.12-13 42, 64 5.19-21 46 5.20 45 5.27 10 2 Thessalonians 1.8 34 2.5 26 2.15 26, 27 3.4 24 3.6 24, 26, 27 3.7-9 23 3.7 29 3.9 22, 27, 34 3.10 24 3.12 24, 27 1 Timothy 1.1 14, 23, 57 1.18 57, 61 2.1–3.16 57 2.3-7 76 2.7 14 2.8-15 57 3 59 3.1-7 57 3.2 56 3.8-10 58 3.8 54 3.11 54 3.12 54 3.14 35 3.15 61 4.4 67 4.6 21 4.11-16 57 4.12 34 4.14 60, 61 4.16 60 5.1-2 58

Index of References 5.3-16 61 5.13 61 5.17-22 58 5.17 56 5.23 123 6.3 21 6.20 21, 33 2 Timothy 1.1 14 1.2 61 1.6 60, 61 1.9-11 76 1.9-10 75 1.11 14 1.13-14 21 1.14 33 2.2 21, 33, 56, 61 3.10-11 24 4.3 21 4.5 57 Titus 1.1-3 14 1.3 23 1.4 62 1.5 62 1.6-9 62, 66 1.7 59, 61 2.1–3.15 73 2.1-10 73 2.1 21, 73 2.2-3 62 2.5 73 2.7 34 2.8 73 2.10 73 2.11-13 75 2.13-14 76 2.14 74, 141 3 79 3.1-7 73 3.1-5 73 3.1-2 73-5, 77 3.1 73, 74 3.3 73-5 3.4-7 73, 75

3.4-5 75 3.5 75, 76 3.6 75 3.7 75-7 3.8-11 73 Philemon 1.1-2 55 8–9 23 Hebrews 2.14 108 3.1 17 6.4-5 108 8.6 108 8.8-12 108, 135 8.10 141 9.1–10.18 108 9.1-14 108 9.12-14 109 9.12 100 9.14 100 9.15 108 9.18-21 108 9.20 108, 111 9.25-28 109 10.3 102 10.5-7 135 10.16-17 108 10.19-20 108 10.22 72 10.25 109 13.9-11 108 13.9-10 108, 109 13.9 109 13.10 109, 111 13.11 109 13.22 109 James 5.14 59 1 Peter 1.2 100 1.19 100 2.4-8 141 2.9-10 141 3.18 98

5 59 5.1-5 56 5.12 140 2 Peter 2.19 74 3.2 21 1 John 1.7 100 5.6-8 100 Revelation 1.5 100 1.10 94 2.2 16 2.20 46 5.9 100 7.14 100 12.11 100 18.20 16 21.14 16, 21 22.20 104 Apocrypha Wisdom of Solomon 1.6 51 16.6 102 Ecclesiasticus 50.1-21 136 Dead Sea Scrolls CD 13.7-13 51 14.8-9 51 14.13 51 Mishnah Abot 1.1 95 1.2 136 Baba Qamma 8.6 49 Ketubbot 7.6 49

151

Index of References Pesahim 10.5 102 Babylonian Talmud Makkot 23b-24a 131 Sanhedrin 43a 137 Philo Legatio ad Gaium 31.210-11 33 De specialibus legibus 1.5.30 33 Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement 13.2 45 14.6 45 44 66 Barbabas 4.8 135 Didache 1–6 80, 81 1.2-6 83 1.2 82, 83 1.3-5 82 2.2-7 82 2.3 82 3.2 82 3.3 82 3.5 82 3.6 82 3.7-10 82 3.7 82 4.1-11 82 4.1-8 82 4.1-2 82 4.1 84 4.2 83 4.3-4 82 4.4 83 4.5-8 82 4.9-11 82

4.14 83 5.2 81, 83 6.1-3 82 6.1-2 82 6.2 83 6.3 82, 83 7.1-4 80 9.1-2 118 9.3 83 9.5 83, 118 10.1 84 10.2 81, 83 10.3 83 10.6 83, 104 11.3-6 15 14.1 83 16.5 84 Ignatius To the Ephesians 1.1 114 2.2–6.1 115 2.2 115 3.2 120 4.1 115 4.2 115 5 115, 117 5.2 115, 116, 119, 120, 122-4, 127, 128 5.3 115 6.1 115, 123 6.2–9.2 117 7.2 120, 128 10.1-3 117 11.1–15.3 117 11.1-2 118 11.1 117, 118, 120, 128 13 117, 128 13.1-2 118 13.1 117, 118, 120, 128 13.2 117 14.1 126 16.1–17.1 119 16.2 117

152 To the Ephesians (cont.) 17.1 120 17.2–18.1 119 17.2 119, 125 18.1 120, 128 18.2–19.3 119 19.3 118, 120, 128 20 128 20.1 119 20.2 119, 120, 126-28 To the Magnesians 3.1-2 123 4 122 4.1 116 6.1 123 7.1 116, 119, 122 7.2 115 10.2 119 To the Philadelphians 2.1–6.2 123 3.1 124 3.2 124 3.3 123 4 114, 115, 118, 122, 123, 127 4.1 124, 125 7.2 116 8.2–9.2 123 To Polycarp 5.2 116 To the Romans 1–8 124 1.2 125 2.1 125 2.2 115 4.1 125 4.3 21 5.3 125 6.1 125

Index of References 6.2 125 7.3 115, 125, 126, 128 8.3 125 9.1 123 9.2 125 To the Smyrnaeans 1–3 122 1.1 114 1.2 127 2.1 121 3.1 127 4.1–7.2 121 4.2 121 5.2 121, 127 5.3 122 6.1 114, 121 6.2 121, 122 7.1-2 120 7.1 118, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127 7.2–9.1 121 7.2 122 8 127 8.1-2 116, 120, 122 8.1 115, 118, 122 8.2 122, 123, 127 9.1 116, 120 12.2 114 To the Trallians 2.2 116 6.1 123 7.2 115, 116 8.1 114, 119, 126 11.2 119 Polycarp To the Philippians 7.2 21 13 114

Classical and Ancient Christian Writings Ad Diognetum 11 20 11.6 20 Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica III.68.8 80 Aristophanes Birds 1022ff. 50 Demosthenes 50.2 52 Epictetus Dissertationes 1.25.1 88 Homer Iliad 22.254-5 50 Odyssey 8.163 50 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.10.2 20 1.10.1 20 3.3.3 20 4.36.7 126 Justin First Apology 5 89 8.2 88 10.1 88 10.4 88 14 89 14.1-5 86, 87 14.1 88, 89 15–16 87 18.2 88 28.2 86

40.7 89, 90 42.3 89 43.3-8 88 54–55 89 61 84, 85 61.1-10 85 61.1 89 61.2 86-8 61.3 89 61.4 88 61.6 86 61.10-13 86 61.10 86, 88 61.12 88 62.1 89 65.1 88, 89 65.3 89, 116 65.5 117 66.1 84, 118 66.2 117 67 89 67.5 116, 117 68.2 90 Second Apology 7.3 88

153

Index of References Dialogue with Trypho 13–14 84 14.8 90 18.2 84 39.2 89 40.4 86 44.4 84 47.5 86 54.1 89 82.1 89 87.5 89 88.1 89 116.2 88 118.1 90 124.1 90 138.2 89

Pliny Epistles 10.96 54

Melito of Sardes Passover Homily 96–97 141

Inscriptions IG 1.10-11 50 4,1 58 12,1,675,6 56 12.1.731 50

Origen Commentary on Matthew 27.22-26 141 Plato Gorgias 491e 51

Tertullian De praescriptione haereticorum 13 20 20 19 Papyri P.Freiburg 8.11 50 P.Petr. 3.36a.17 50

Merneptah Stele lines 26-28 130

I ndex Aarde, A. G. van 22, 38 Abbott, W. 129 Ǻdna, J. 97-9 Agnew, F. H. 1, 3, 4 Alexander, S. 131 Arav, R. 134 Aulén, G. xiii, xvi Aune, D. E. 122 Barnett, P. 95 Barrett, C. K. 67, 78 Bauckham, R. 11 Beare, F. W. 32 Behm, J. 133 Bellescize, L. de 113, 114, 122, 127 Benoit, A. 80, 81, 84-9 Berger, K. 81 Berger, P. L. xiii Best, E. 22-4 Betz, J. 118, 123 Beyer, H. W. 50-2, 60, 66 Bjerkelund, C. J. 23 Blass, F. 56 Bleyenberg, U. 113 Bockmuehl, M. N. A. 24 Boor, W. de 47 Boring, E. M. 45, 56, 61 Bornkamm, G. 58 Brockhaus, U. 42, 63, 65 Brooten, B. J. 47, 48 Brosché, F. 47, 69 Brown, R. E. 78, 79, 132 Bruce, F. F. 23 Bühner, J.-A. 3, 6, 14 Bultmann, R. 27, 31, 78-80 Byrne, B. 35, 36 Byrskog, S. 6, 10, 12-15 Camelot, P. Th. 117, 120, 126 Campenhausen, H. F. von 4-6, 17, 114, 125

of A uthors Cavallin, H. 47, 69 Charlesworth, J. 135 Collins, R. F. 47, 69, 106 Colson, J. 122, 126 Conzelmann, H. 6, 30, 67, 70, 72, 76 Corwin, V. 116, 117, 121-3, 125, 126, 128 Cranfield, C. E. B. 32, 35, 37 Danby, H. 102 Dautzenberg, G. 45, 48, 68, 70 Davies, W. D. 25, 136 Debrunner, A. 56 Dever, W. 130 Dibelius, M. 50, 72, 76 Dulles, A. 129 Dungan, D. L. 28 Dunn, J. D. G. 11, 28, 32, 37, 54, 65, 94, 95, 104, 106 Duprez, A. 138 Ehrman, B. D. 20 Eising, H. 102 Eliade, M. 71 Engberg-Pedersen, T. 39 Ericsson, B. 139 Eriksson, A. 28 Fagerberg, H. xiv Fee, G. D. 24, 26, 30, 98, 100, 101, 103, 106 Ferguson, E. 61 Fischer, J. A. 117, 124 Fitzer, G. 67-9 Fitzmyer, J. 23, 35-7, 50, 51, 54, 57, 61, 62 Flanagan, N. M. 47 Fornberg, T. 132, 136-8, 141 Frey, J. 41, 55 Fridrichsen, A. xiv-xvi Friedrich, G. 56 Furnish, V. P. 22, 34



Index of Authors

Gäbel, G. 110 Gagnon, R. A. J. 31-4 Gallagher, J. 129 Gennep, A. van 71 Gerdmar, A. 135 Gerhardsson, B. xiii, xv, 3, 25, 28, 138 Gese, H. 99 Gibbard, S. M. 114, 117 Gnilka, J. 65 Goppelt, L. 26 Green, G. L. 23, 56 Greeven, H. 43, 46, 59, 65, 66 Grosheide, F. W. 47 Haacker, K. 7, 36 Haenchen, E. 8 Hahn, F. 3, 4 Hainz, J. 104 Hanges, J. C. 29 Hartman, L. 72, 76, 77, 80, 84 Hasler, V. 74, 76 Hauck, F. 104 Hauschild, W.-D. 122 Hawthorne, G. W. 49, 51, 52 Heen, E. M. xiv Heiron, G. 130 Héring, J. 47 Hill, C. E. 20 Holmberg, B. xiii, 41, 42, 46, 51, 55, 56 Holtz, T. 43, 64 Horbury, W. 47, 48, 54 Hvalvik, R. 29, 34, 35, 140 Isacson, M. 114, 115, 117-19, 121, 123 Jeremias, J. 50, 57, 96, 101 Jewett, R. 31, 36, 53 Johanny, R. 114, 121, 124 Judant, S. 142 Karpp, H. 50, 66 Käsemann, E. 31, 50, 60, 61, 63-6 Kee, H. C. 129 Kim, S. 9, 12 Kirk, J. A. 1 Klauck, H.-J. 101, 102, 115, 117, 123, 124, 128 Klawiter, F. C. 113, 120, 121, 124, 126 Klein, G. 2, 6, 7 Knight, G. W. III 75

155

Koskenniemi, E. 48 Kümmel, W. G. 21, 47 Lang, P. 68, 70 Lategan, B. 12 Lawyer, J. E. 113, 114 Le Bonniec, H. 87 Legarth, P. 115, 116, 123-5 Lietzmann, H. 68, 101 Lightfoot, J. B. 1 Lindemann, A. 24 Lindroth, H. xiv Linton, O. xiv, xv Lipiński, E. 130 Lofthouse, W. F. 11 Lohse, E. 33, 36 Longenecker, R. N. 9 Luckmann, T. xiii Luz, U. 134, 137 Malherbe, A. J. 21, 23, 26 Marshall, I. H. 23, 27, 74-7, 94, 101, 106 Martini, C. M. 142 Martyn, J. L. 25 Mazza, E. 113, 122-5 Meinhold, P. 116, 122 Mendenhall, G. 130 Merkel, H. 72, 74 Merklein, H. 15 Metzger, B. M. 68 Michel, O. 35, 37 Milavec, A. 72, 80, 81, 83 Minns, D. 116 Mitchell, M. M. 30 Moe, O. 109 Moffatt, J. 32, 33 Moo, D. J. 33, 37 Mount, C. 46 Mussner, F. 136 Niccum, C. 69 Niederwimmer, K. 80-4 Noth, M. 135 Notley, S. 130 Nygren, A. xiv O’Neill, J. C. 35 Oberlinner, L. 41, 51, 57, 59, 61, 66, 72-6 Ollrog, W.-H. 35 Osiek, C. 51, 52

156

Index of Authors

Parvis, P. 116 Paulsen, H. 114-16, 121-3, 125-7 Pawlikowski, J. 142 Payne, P. B. 67-9 Pelikan, J. 126 Quasten, J. 84, 85, 87 Quinn, J. D. 72, 76 Rainey, A. 130 Rehkopf, F. 56 Rengstorf, K. H. 2 Ridderbos, H. 32 Riesenfeld, H. xiv, xv Riesner, R. 7, 10, 14 Roller, O. 9 Roloff, J. 1, 5, 6, 14, 38, 41, 49-51, 53, 54, 59, 64-6, 72 Rousseau, J. 134 Ruager, S. 109, 110 Sáenz-Badillos, A. 130 Sampley, J. P. 37 Schäfer, K. Th. 119 Schelke, K. H. 50, 65 Schlatter, A. 26, 48 Schlier, H. 31, 32, 61, 62, 139 Schmithals, W. 2 Schnackenburg, R. 55, 57, 79 Schneider, Th. 45, 46, 50, 56, 59, 65, 66 Schnelle, U. 77 Schnider, F. 36 Schoedel, W. R. 113, 114, 116-19, 121-3, 125, 126 Schöllgen, G. 50, 66 Schrage, W. 24, 30, 44, 67, 68, 106 Schreiner, T. R. 31, 33, 37 Schweizer, E. 52, 64 Seifrid, M. A. 37 Snyder, E. H. 47 Snyder, G. F. 119 Soden, W. von 130 Sohm, R. 63

Sperber, A. 99 Staats, R. 116, 125 Stanley, D. M. 24 Stendahl, K. 139, 140 Stenger, W. 36 Stettler, Chr. 48 Stirewalt, M. L., Jr. 22 Strobel, A. 30 Stuhlmacher, P. 23, 34, 36, 37, 95-9, 103-7 Swetnam, J. 108 Tachau, P. 72 Thiselton, A. C. 30, 46, 48, 68, 69, 106 Thoma, C. 42 Thornton, C.-J. 95 Thraede, K. 54 Thurén, J. 44, 45 Thurén, L. 40 Tomson, P. J. 48, 49, 70 Trilling, W. 27, 38 Van Voorst, R. 137 Vander Stichele, C. 27 Vögtle, A. 46 Wanamaker, C. A. 23 Ward, J. 133 Wegenast, K. 25-7 Wehr, L. 113-15, 117-23, 125-7 Weise, E. 95 Wendland, H.-D. 48 Wenham, D. 28, 95, 139 Whelan, C. F. 54 Widengren, G. 71 Wilckens, U. 31, 32, 36, 37, 54, 77 Williams, G. H. 87 Williamson, R. 108 Witherington, B. 45, 47, 68-70 Wolff, Chr. 30, 47, 48 ZaÔartu, S. 120 Zeller, D. 35, 37